1951-12-10

Mr.  J. A. Bradelle@Cochrane: 

STANDING ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Matthew MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) presented the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon, L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the resolution of which notice appears at page 11 of the order paper, as follows:
That on and after Wednesday, December 12, 1951, until the end of the session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of each sitting day and that, in addition to the usual intermission at 6.15 o'clock, p.m., there shall be an intermission everyday from 1 to 2.30 o'clock, p.m., except on Friday, when the intermission shall be from 1 to 2 o'clock, p.m.; and every Wednesday and Friday until the end of the session the house shall meet from 8 to 10 o'clock, p.m.
I feel that it is the hope of many members of parliament that without unduly rushing anything we might complete the business that is to be dealt with perhaps even this week, and if not this week by early in next week so that hon. members, including those who reside at great distances from Ottawa, may have plenty of time to reach their homes before Christmas day. I hope that this motion will meet with unanimous approval of the house.	' . * ' " ,
1712	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I am not prepared to give unanimous approval to a motion of this kind for a particular reason among others. Early in the session there was an indication that after several years of discussion there was going to be a committee on defence expenditures set up at this present session. In spite of the importance of that committee it began to sit only last week and for reasons which I need not discuss but which I do not regard as valid it has held only intermittent meetings.
The committee met again this morning and adjourned until Thursday. I would suggest that if there is any other reason why we should meet in an orderly way and not hasten the proceedings of this house to the point where business cannot be dealt with expeditiously by members who wish to sit on committees as well it is that there should be a report from the committee on defence expenditures before this house rises.
The motion before us is obviously for the purpose of getting work done so that the predictions that have been offered that we might terminate the sittings this week can be fulfilled. I believe that it is immensely important that the time of our sitting remain as it is so that hon. members who attend committees may also have an opportunity to sit in the house. A number of the committees are still sitting and these are all important committees. There is the committee on defence expenditures; there is the committee on radio; there are committees on other matters, and I think hon. members should still attach some importance to public accounts, which committee is still sitting.
There cannot be that attention to the work of these committees and also attention to the business of the house that the nature of the work of the house justifies if this motion is adopted. I urge strongly that it should not be adopted and that we continue to meet at the hours that have been set.
There is another reason. I think members of this house should be given an opportunity to digest the reports in order to be able to present their views thereon. It is perfectly clear at the moment that they will not have the slightest chance to examine these reports and express their opinion if this course is followed. Therefore I oppose the motion and I hope that it will not pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Drew: Is the motion in order?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.
(Mr. St. Laurent.]


Mr. Green:: May I ask how this motion can be called when it appears on routine proceedings after the orders of the day?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recall that I made a ruling on that matter last year, and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) will also recall that I made such a ruling. Here is what I said, as reported in Votes and Proceedings of Monday, September 4, 1950:
I may say to the leader of the opposition that last year I considered this same question, and it then seemed to me, as he says, that such a motion should be considered at a later time. But under citation 132 in Beauchesne's second edition I notice the following:
"The motions allowed on routine proceedings are motions relating to the business of the house and for the discussion of reports from committees."
This motion definitely relates to the business of the house and should therefore be considered at this time. I think the misunderstanding arises from the fact that such motions generally appear under "government notices of motions." Actually, however, they are not "government notices of motions" in the usual sense.
In view of the citation which I have mentioned in Beauchesne's second edition and of the practice which has been established, I think the motion should be considered now.



REDISTRIBUTION COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. Power (Quebec South' moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 35, respecting the constitution and duties of the redistribution commission.
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Power:: This bill is to set up a commission of three members, whose duty it will be to draw a plan for the division of the provinces of Canada into electoral districts in accordance with the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Act, as enacted by the British North America Act, 1946.
This proposal is not a new one. It has been bandied back and forth across the floor of this house since 1889. I had the honour of being given the task of preparing a bill for presentation to this house in 1940, but owing to the abrupt conclusion of the session of that date it was not proceeded with. The details of the bill are somewhat complex and are likely to be controversial. It is for that reason I am asking permission to introduce the bill so that it may be distributed to the members, and it will be reintroduced next session.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Mr. Knowles:: Now.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting.



REPORT OF AUDITOR GENERAL


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the public accounts of Canada and the report of the Auditor General of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1951, which were tabled on October 31, 1951, be referred to the public accounts committee.


Mr. Fleming:: I think we should have some sense of reality in this matter. Is the minister suggesting that the committee is going to have time at this session to go into the question of public accounts?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would think not. This is a routine motion. Since the public accounts are available, hon. members will now have an opportunity to read them. They were tabled in typed form a couple of weeks ago. They are now available in printed form.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 36, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The main purpose of this bill is to forbid persons engaged in manufacturing, buying or selling articles or commodities from fixing specific or minimum resale prices for such articles or commodities.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a second time?


Mr. Fraser:: Next session.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting.

Questions



QUESTIONS


Mr. McLure:: What was the average cost price per pound of (a) coconut oil; (b) cottonseed oil; (c) soybean oil; (d) sunflower seed oil; (e) other vegetable oils; (f) marine and fish oils; (g) edible tallow oils; (h) other animal oils, imported or domestic, purchased in Canada and used in the manufacture of margarine in 1950?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Average cost price per pound, crude basis, to Ontario manufacturers of margarine,
calendar year 1950:
(a)	Coconut oil	
17(b)	Cottonseed oil	
17(c)	Soybean oil	
16(d)	Sunflower seed oil	
17(e)	Other vegetable oils	
17(f)	Marine and fish oils	
10(g)	Edible tallow oils . * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10(h)	Other animal oils	
1
1 Quantity used in 1950 negligible.


DEPARTMENTAL STORES, MAIL-ORDER HOUSES, ETC.
Mr. Beaudry:: 1.	What was the number of films, not classified as departmental stores, operating three or more retail stores during each of the years 1925, 1930, 1935, 1939, 1945, 1948 and 1951?
2.	What was the total number of stores operated by these firms for each of the years 1925, 1930, 1935, 1939, 1945, 1948 and 1951?
3.	What was the number of firms classified as departmental stores operating one or more stores during each of the years 1925, 1930, 1935, 1939, 1945, 1948 and 1951?
4.	What was the total number of stores operated by these firms during each of the years 1925, 1930, 1935, 1939, 1945, 1948 and 1951?
5.	What was the total volume of retail business done in Canada during each of the years 1925, 1930, 1935, 1939, 1945, 1948 and 1951?
6.	What was the total volume of business done by firms operating three or more retail stores not classified as departmental stores, during each of the years 1925, 1930, 1935, 1939, 1945, 1948 and 1951?
7.	What was the total volume of business done by these firms classified as departmental stores for each of the years 1925, 1930, 1935, 1939, 1945, 1948 and 1951?
8.	What was the number of mail-order houses, not classified as branches of departmental stores, operating in Canada during each of the years 1925, 1930, 1935, 1939, 1945, 1948 and 1951?
9.	What was the number of mail-order houses classified as branches of departmental stores, operating in Canada during each of the years 1925, 1930, 1935, 1939, 1945, 1948 and 1951?
10.	What was the total volume of business done by mail-order houses of all categories mentioned above during each of the years 1925, 1930, 1935, 1939, 1945, 1948 and 1951?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Information is available only for years in which the census of merchandising and

service establishments was taken. For these years the number of firms not classified as department stores operating three or more stores was:
1930, 957; 1941, 975.
Note: The dominion bureau of statistics classification used in the decennial censuses of merchandising and in the annual surveys separates -chain stores from independent stores at the four and over rather than at the three and over level. A chain store is defined as a group of four or more stores or other retail places of business under the same ownership and operation and carrying on the same or similar kinds of business. Many firms in Canada, however, operate two or three retail outlets, thus occupying an intermediate position between single independent stores and chains. These are classified for census purposes as two or three-store multiples. The above figures were obtained by adding the number of firms operating chain stores (four or more stores) and the number operating three-store multiples.
The number of firms, (excluding department stores) operating four or more retail outlets, as recorded in the census or in annual surveys was:
1925, not available; 1930, 518; 1935, 445; 1939, 446; 1941, 533; 1945, 429; 1948, 403; 1951, not available.
. 2. Information available only for years in which the census of merchandising and service estabiisnments was taken. For these years the number of stores operated by firms operating three or more retail stores was:
1930, 9,821; 1941, 9,338.
See note to answer No. 1.
The number of stores operated by firms (excluding department stores) operating four or more retail outlets was:
1925, not available; 1930, 8,504; 1935, 8,022; 1939, 7,595; 1941, 8,012; 1945, 6,705; 1948, 7,152; 1951, not available.
3.	Information not available. For census purposes all department stores are classified as independents irrespective of the number of stores operated by any one firm.
4.	Information available only for years in which the census of merchandising was taken. For these years the number of department stores was:
1930, 148; 1941, 504.
5.	The total volume of retail business done in Canada was:
1925, not available; 1930, $2,755,570,000; 1935,	$2,120,348,000;	1939,	$2,597,752,000;

1941,	$3,440,902,000;	1945, not available;1948,	$7,276,400,000;	1950 (preliminary),
$9,087,714,000; 1951, not available.
6.	Information is available only for years in which the census of merchandising was taken. For these years the total volume of business done by firms operating three or more retail stores not classified as department stores was:
1930, $549,275,000; 1941, $707,745,000.
See note to answer No. 1.
The volume of retail business done by chain stores (four or more stores) was:
1925, not available; 1930,	$487,336,000;
1935, $364,129,000; 1939, $432,026,000; 1941, $642,636,000;	1945,	$876,209,000;	1948,
$1,335,735,000; 1951, not available.
7.	The total volume of business done by department stores was:
1925, not available; 1930,	$355,259,000;
1935, $258,993,000; 1939, $291,161,000; 1941, $377,806,000;	1945,	$516,141,000;	1948,
$803,092,000; 1950 (preliminary), $873,099,000; 1951, not available.
8.	9 and 10. Separate information on mailorder houses is not available. The figures shown in No. 7 include the business of mailorder houses or offices. Since the major portion of the mail-order business in Canada is transacted by a comparatively small number of the larger departmental firms it is necessary to combine the mail-order sales with department store business in order to avoid disclosing, at least within narrow limits, the operations of individual firms.


NEWSREEL FILMS
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Are the newsreel films produced by the national film board (a) sold to Canadian and foreign motion picture theatres and motion picture producers; (b) distributed free to Canadian and foreign picture theatres and motion picture producers?
2.	If sold (a) what was the total revenue in 1950? (b) what was the total revenue for the first nine months of 1951; (c) to what firms or individuals were these newsreels sold; (d) what are the addresses of these firms or individuals?
3.	If distributed free, what is the name and address of each individual or firm?
4.	What was the total estimated cost of producing these newsreel shorts during (a) the year 1950; (b) the first nine months of 1951?


Mr. Winters:: 1. (a) News feature material about Canada produced by the national film board is sold for television use in the United States of America, (b) News feature material about Canada produced by the national film board is supplied free to motion picture producers in various countries. It is not supplied
Questions
directly to Canadian or foreign motion picture theatres. The producers distribute the newsreels to the theatres. Newsreels for use in Canada are produced either in New York (five producing companies with Canadian editions) or in London (one producing company with a Canadian edition). Canadian material for these editions is obtained from commercial sources as well as from the board.
2.	(a) $1111.50; (b) $712.50; (c) and (d) National Broadcasting Company, New York City, U.S.A.; Television Productions Inc., New York City, U.S.A.
3.	The following companies last year used NFB news feature material for inclusion in Canadian editions of newsreels:
Paramount News, 544 W. 43rd street, New York City,
Fox Movietone News, 460 W. 54th street, New York City,
Warner Pathe News, 625 Madison avenue, New York City,
Metro Goldwyn Mayer (News of the Day), 450 W. 56th street, New York City, Universal International News, 105 E. 106th street, New York City,
Gaumont-British, 142-150 Wardour street, London.
The following companies last year used NFB news feature material in newsreels distributed in the United States of America, Alaska, Hawaii, Cuba and the Philippines: Paramount News,
Fox Movietone News,
Warner Pathe News,
Metro Goldwyn Mayer (News of the Day), Universal International News.
The following companies last year used NFB news feature material in newsreels distributed in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Mexica, Peru, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama:
Paramount News,
Fox Movietone News,
Metro Goldwyn Mayer (News of the Day), Universal International News.
Fox Movietone distributed NFB news feature material last year in Portugal, Portuguese East Africa and West Africa.
Gaumont-British releases three individual newsreels; Gaumont News, Universal News and JARO news, all of which contained NFB material last year. Gaumont and Universal News are distributed throughout the British isles and the following countries:	France,

Questions
South Africa, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Holland, Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Egypt, Turkey, Spain and, in some cases, Czechoslovakia and Poland. The JARO edition is the one distributed throughout Canada.
The following companies last year used NFB material in newsreels distributed throughout Europe: British Paramount News, London; Fox Movietone News; Warner Pathe News.
British Paramount also distributed NFB material last year in Stockholm, Belgium, Cairo, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, British West Indies, South Africa and India.
NFB also has special distribution arrangements in Italy through INCOM of Rome which controls newsreel distribution for Italy, and with Belgavox, which is the newsreel authority for Belgium.
4.	(a) 1950-$53,004.35; (b) 9 months, 1951 -$57,519.58.


GOVERNMENT PRINTING
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Is any of the printing for which payment has not been made by various departments of government to the king's printer, printing which the department refused to accept, or refused to pay for?
2.	If so, what is the amount so involved, by departments, and what is the reason for such refusal, by departments?
3.	What proportion of the printing done by the government printing bureau for any recent period for which figures are available, is letterpress printing, and what proportion is offset printing?
4.	How much of the money owing to the king's printer as at November 22, 1951, is for (a) letterpress printing; (b) offset printing, by departments?


Mr. Bradley:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3 and 4. The department of public printing and stationery maintains no record of the printing methods used in the production of any specific printing job. In many cases both letterpress and offset processes enter into the production of one job.
The compilation of the figures are possible, but it would involve an examination of individual time sheets in respect to every single job produced in the department. The number of jobs completed and charged to departments of the public service during the fiscal year 1950-51 was 21,608. Additional staff would have to be provided for the compilation of such a report.
(Mr. Winters.]


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY  ASSISTANCE
[Stage Direction]
.	FROM QUEBEC
Mr. Winkler:: Has the province of Quebec made any offers to assist in the development of the St. Lawrence seaway?


Mr. Benidickson:: The province of Quebec submitted to the 1947 board of engineers on the Lachine section of the St. Lawrence waterway several plans for the joint development of power and navigation on the Lachine section.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	Were any bait depots or cold storage plants for use in the fisheries industry constructed in Newfoundland in 1951?
2.	If so, in what locations, and what is the cost in each case?


Mr. MacNaughi:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Construction of one bait depot undertaken at Port aux Choix. Will be completed in 1952 at total estimated cost of $25,000.



NATIONAL INCOME

Mr. Dechene:: What was the national income in each of the years (a) 1931 to 1935 inclusive; (b) 1945 to 1950 inclusive?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Net national income at factor cost, in millions of dollars:
(a)	1931, 3,261; 1932, 2,582; 1933, 2,387; 1934, 2,820; 1935, 3,117.
(b)	1945, 9,788; 1946, 9,819; 1947, 10,916; 1948, 12,474; 1949, 13,169; 1950, 14,308.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


TRAFFIC SIGNALS


Mr. Weir:: 1.	How many applications were made to the board of transport commissioners for the installation of flash light type of traffic signals at railway and highway crossings in Canada during (a) the year 1950; (b) the year 1951?
2.	How many of these signals were actually installed?
3.	At what places were the installations made?


William Moore Benidickson: Return tabled.



LOANS MADE BY FARM LOAN BOARD

Mr. Winkler:: 1.	By years and by provinces, since 1940, how many loans were made by the Canadian farm loan board?

2.	In the same period how many loans were paid
up?
3.	How many are outstanding?


Mr. Sinclair:: Return tabled.



MEDICAL FEES

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Have any medical doctors received fees from departments of the government, in excess of $5,000 in each of the years 1949, 1950, 1951 to date?
2.	If so, how many, what are the names and addresses of such doctors and the respective amounts paid to each of them?



LAURIER HOUSE AND KINGSMERE PARK

Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: 1.	How many days is Laurier house open to visitors each week?
2.	What are the visiting hours?
3.	Since the opening of Laurier house on August 1, 1951, how many persons have visited it?
4.	What is the average number of visitors per day?
5.	On what date was the property known as Kingsmere park declared open to visitors?
6.	Are there any parking facilities for motor cars at Kingsmere park?
7.	If so, how many cars can be accommodated in the parking space?
8.	What is the approximate average number of persons who have visited Kingsmere park each week since it was opened to the public?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all notices of dismissal or removal from office for cause, given to permanent employees of the income tax or corporation tax divisions of the Department of National Revenue in (a) Montreal; (b) Toronto; (c) Winnipeg, since January 1, 1951.



REGULATIONS REGARDING FLIGHT COMPARTMENTS

Mr. Fulion:: For a copy of all correspondence between the Canadian air lines pilots' association and the director of civil aviation or between the Canadian air lines pilots' association and any other department of government in connection with the request by the Canadian air lines pilots' association that the full authority of the captain of each aircraft be recognized over the flight compartment of the aircraft under his control.



CANADA GRAIN ACT

[Stage Direction]
CANCELLATION OF SECTIONS 61 AND 62 On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am sorry I did not send him notice of it until he came to the house, but the matter was not brought to my attention until just a short time ago. What
Inquiries of the Ministry authority is there for the recent action of the transport controller in cancelling the operation of sections 61 and 62 of the Canada Grain Act, 1930, with regard to the operation of a car order book? Will the government, in view of the strong representations made by the pools and other farm organizations in western Canada against this order, reconsider the matter?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The transport controller was appointed under the Emergency Powers Act passed by parliament, and under the terms of his appointment he has authority to control all matters affecting transportation. I think there is no doubt that he has the necessary authority. A complaint has been received from the Saskatchewan wheat pool, and will be referred to the transport controller for a report and for such action as seems appropriate in the light of the complaint.



DEFENCE CONTRACTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I wish to direct to the Minister of Defence Production a question of which I sent him notice- I hope he received it. Will the minister, before the end of the session, advise the house the total amount of (a) defence contracts placed by the United States in Canada; (b) defence contracts placed by Canada in the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In reply to the question, I will be glad to furnish such information as we have, which is confined to orders placed officially by the government of Canada in the United States and orders placed officially by the departments of the United States government through the Canadian Commercial Corporation in Canada. I might point out that, in addition to these orders, there is a great volume of orders being placed directly by parent firms in the United States with their Canadian subsidiaries, or by departments of government in the United States directly with firms in Canada of which this federal government has no record. I think it may well be that the total of these orders, of which we have no record, is about equal to the orders of which we have official record. I would like to bring these circumstances to your attention before bringing down such information as we have.

Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT



SERVICES IN NEW BRUNSWICK AND NOVA SCOTIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What air service in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia has been taken over by the Maritime Central Airways from the Trans-Canada Air Lines, or was there an exchange of service so as to avoid duplication?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: No air services have been taken away from New Brunswick. The air transport board handed down a decision recently upon an application by Trans-Canada Air Lines to serve Fredericton. In exchange for that service, Canadian Maritime Central will now serve Yarmouth on the route from Boston to Saint John, into Yarmouth and on to Halifax.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? Would the minister care to expand this morning's radio news report to the effect that a new international arrangement is to take the place of IRO with respect to the movement of immigrants? Can the minister tell us what Canada's position is with respect to this new arrangement, and anything else that would be of help?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I did not hear the radio comment, Mr. Speaker, but I suppose it was a version of the story which appeared in the newspapers. The international refugee organization is coming to the end of the labours which were assigned to it by the UN at the end of the war. It was the feeling of the principal countries concerned with the movement of these unfortunate people that something should be done to completely dispose of the problem by some method other than IRO. A conference has been held in Brussels for that purpose. Canada was represented by the director of immigration. The only conclusion they reached, of which I am aware, was that a provisional committee would be set up to continue the study of the problem, and that efforts would be made through the respective governments to find a solution to the problem of dealing with about 115,000 people who are still on the rolls of IRO.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is Canada a member of that provisional committee?
[Mr. Howe.)


Walter Edward Harris: I have not been informed, Mr. Speaker, whether or not we are. It was intended that those who supported the provisional committee at the conference would be represented upon it.



FEED AND COARSE GRAINS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce say whether the government or the wheat board has yet taken any steps to move feed grains into those areas of western Canada in which they are in short supply or, in some cases, non-existent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The wheat board sells grain to any purchaser, and will arrange to have it loaded for any destination. I have no knowledge of any movement of the type described, but I presume if such movement is required some purchaser in the area will be buying wheat and having it moved in. If so, I am sure prompt attention will be given io the movement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What about coarse grains, which are even more important than wheat from the point of view of feed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The same statement applies to coarse grains.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I rise on a special question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I know that earlier this session it was decided that hon. members would not notice distinguished visitors in the gallery, but there are outstanding exceptions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I am sure you will allow us the privilege of noticing the presence in the gallery of the distinguished Lord Provost of Glasgow, and welcoming him.



KURT MEYER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the uncertainty which has been created by the statements made by those counsel responsible for the prosecution of Kurt Meyer and those defend-

ing him, as well as statements by counsel more recently engaged, which throw a great deal of uncertainty upon the propriety of what is taking place, will the Prime Minister indicate whether the government intends to take any action?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I am sorry, but I have no comment to make at this time.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Argue, as amended.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in this house we have been engaged for some time in debating a motion that a humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, Field Marshal the Right Hon. the Viscount Alexander of Tunis. It so happens, sir, that today is the birthday of His Excellency the Governor General. I know I am speaking on behalf of all hon. members of this house when I extend to him birthday felicitations, greetings and good wishes. A man great in war and in peace, the manner in which he has discharged his responsibilities as Governor General has made him justly popular everywhere in this Dominion of Canada.
There have been amendments and subamendments, the latest of which was moved on Wednesday last. For the first time in more than a generation, in order to water down an amendment that would constitute a motion of non-confidence in His Excellency's advisers, a member supporting the government has moved a subamendment which was, to say the least, constitutionally unusual. I believe the result of that subamendment, regular in its form as it was and in order as declared by Your Honour, has been to place the government of this country in a quagmire of difficulty. I intend, if I may, to refer to the only examples that exist of an amendment or a subamendment along the lines of the one in question. When I do so, I want to give my thanks to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) for his collaboration and study in connection with this matter.


An hon. Member:: North Centre.


John George Diefenbaker: It is usually North Centre who deals with the rules, but this time I refer to South Centre, a new member who has come into the house but recently, and who adds
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker that strength and ability to the house which able and qualified men bring to our deliberations.
I believe it is worth bringing to the attention of the government that an examination of the Journals of this house indicates that from 1867 until 1902 the practice was followed of moving a resolution to the effect that a humble address be presented to the Governor General. The formal address was followed by a series of paragraphs repeating almost word for word the corresponding statements which appeared in the speech from the throne. From 1888 until 1896 the practice was to put the question for each paragraph of the resolu* tion, and it was discontinued.
The custom up to 1895 was to refer to a special committee of the house the drafting of an address to His Excellency or to His Majesty the King. In 1903 a short form of address was adopted which is the one in effect now. It is interesting to note that. Between 1867 and 1902 only two amendments to the resolution were ever considered. The first of these was in 1893 and was an amendment by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then in opposition, and the amendment was defeated. The seoond amendment occurred in 1899, and that is one similar in nature to that moved by the hon. member for The Battle-fords (Mr. Bater). That amendment proposed adding a tenth paragraph to the resolution and suggested the appointment of a judicial commission to investigate alleged malpractices in the administration of the Yukon. A subamendment was moved by the government supporters expressing confidence in the commissioner of the Yukon. The subamendment carried and was added as paragraph ten of the resolution.
Someone will immediately say that what the hon. member for The Battlefords has done, even though it is as far back as 1899, indicated that we have the right to do it now. At the time that subamendment was moved general procedure was different from what it is now. As I pointed out a moment ago, in 1903 the humble address that we now send to His Excellency was then adopted. From 1903 to the present day the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has occupied more time of the house than it had previous to the adoption of the short form of address. In the period between 1903 and June 1951, 35 amendments and 30 subamendments, a total of 65, that have been found in order or have not been challenged, have been proposed to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In all those 65 amendments never has there been a case, since the alteration in the procedure connected

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker with the address from the throne, in which a government member has moved a subamendment. We therefore have to turn to Britain and examine its constitutional practice and history.
The practice in the British House of Commons appears to have been the same as that which is now followed in Canada. The short form in reply to the speech from the throne was adopted in Britain in 1891, and amendments thereto have always been considered as motions of want of confidence. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave his imprimatur to that viewpoint when, on October 15 last, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) moved an amendment and asked that there be a free vote in the House of Commons, and said that there was no intention to have the amendment to the motion considered as a vote of non-confidence. As reported at page 33 of Hansard the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said:
If It is not a motion of no confidence it probably is not in order . . .
He had said earlier that it was a matter for the Speaker to decide. In the fifteenth edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 1950, there are only two references to amendments to the address being passed in Britain. One of those occurred in 1924 and resulted in the immediate resignation of the government I repeat, Mr. Speaker, what I said a while ago, that this government is in a procedural quagmire. I think they are in the position that the psalmist referred to when he said: "In the net which they hid is their own foot taken". Apparently they devised this form of adulteration which removes from the opposition the right to place before parliament and have parliament vote on amendments that are non-confidence amendments. We have gone far enough along the way of the one-party state. We in this opposition and all future oppositions should not be denied the right to introduce specific motions of non-confidence and have them voted upon in the house irrespective of the difficulties or the mental exercise that may be caused to some of the members for having to vote on an amendment which they would like to support but which their political persuasion does not permit them to do.
I believe that before we are through with this matter, if we are to restore some degree of constitutional regularity to what has happened, I think the government will have to do something similar to that which was done in 1894. Then a Liberal government was in power and Lord Roseberry was Prime Minister. Sir William Harcourt was leader of the house. An amendment was put forward 
by a private member on the opposition side dealing with the subject of restricting the power of the House of Lords. Some of the government members then had a higher degree of independence than has been characteristic of government members at other times and in other places, and they voted for the amendment. The result was that the amendment to the address was supported on a vote of 147 to 145.
If you read Hansard and the London Times of that period you will find that, for two or three days, there was an unusual degree of excitement in the house. The government was embarrassed. Governments sometimes became embarrassed in those days as a result of constitutional difficulties in which they found themselves. There was no precedent. Mr. Balfour of the official opposition, who was always a master of understatement, said that this was "an unexampled position in our parliamentary history". The government did not feel they should resign. But the government found itself in a position where it could not submit the address in its amended form to the king. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, His Excellency receiving the following address, as it will read if the subamendment passes:
May it please Your Excellency:
We, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament; but this house regrets the serious difficulties encountered by the western farmers in harvesting their crops, and commends Your Excellency's advisers for the continuing attention they have given to the problems caused thereby, and is confident that effective measures will continue to be taken to help the farmers in meeting these problems.
When His Majesty's representative receives that message, it will have one qualification: it will be unique in parliamentary history. In effect it says: This is a motion of confidence and regret but in voting for the motion of non-confidence we want at the same time to say that we have confidence in the government. We are slipping a little but we will not fall in expressing our confidence in the government. My submission is that if the government and the members supporting it vote affirmatively in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), as amended by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater), it will be tantamount to saying that they have no confidence in the government while at the same time saying that they have.


Mr. Ferrie:: You are a good lawyer.


John George Diefenbaker: I am quoting from
Liberal records in Britain now. That is the point. It is not a lawyer's argument. What had to be done in Britain will have to be done here. What great parliamentarians in Britain had to do in order to extricate a government that was put into difficulty by a motion of the opposition, not by one of their own members, may have to be done here.


Mr. Sinnolt:: And the member for Lake Centre.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was endeavouring to speak to those who will follow intelligently what I am trying to say. I am glad to know my hon. friend is following this argument.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am glad to know the hat fits.


John George Diefenbaker: In the British parliament, to extricate themselves from the unusual situation the government had to ask the assistance of the official opposition, with the result that the house voted down the main motion as amended and subsequently moved a new address expressed in terms similar to the original. And thus, though humiliated, a precedent was not established of the government amending its own address.
That, sir, is the position in which, as I see it, the government is placed. After all, the form of address if the amendment of the hon. member for The Battlefords is adopted is bound to be unusual. It will be a departure from a hundred years of parliamentary practice in Great Britain. It will be a departure from over fifty-five years of parliamentary procedure in this country.
The situation that occurred in Great Britain in 1894 occurred, I point out, not with the connivance, assistance or condonation of the government, or with the assistance of a government member. It arose by an amendment moved by an opposition member. I suggest, sir, that the government take immediate action to remove the anomalous situation created by the subamendment, in the interests of sound and constitutional parliamentary procedure and in order to preserve future parliaments from a ruling that, while sound and unchallengeable, will have the effect of removing from the opposition the right that oppositions should have, and that should surely not be denied even though the government has an overwhelming majority-the right to move amendments on specific matters and to have the amendments voted on; otherwise a precedent will be created that future
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker parliaments will always be subject, on amendments expressing non-confidence, to subamendments by government members designed to make them palatable to government members by a substituted form of adulteration such as .will take place if the subamendment is passed. I suggest that this subamendment, in its present form, is an example of a trend indicative of an allpowerful government which would remove from the opposition the last surviving right it has in parliament, that of moving a clear-cut motion of non-confidence.
I pass on now to discuss the excessive load of taxation the Canadian people are carrying today, in consequence of the bad guesses made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and his advisers a few short months ago. Before proceeding further I may say that this amendment could have been moved a considerable time ago, but it was not moved until the Minister of Finance returned to Canada, after having represented this country abroad. One of the pleasant amenities of parliament is that while we all cannot and should not see eye to eye, and parliament could not exist with only one party, nevertheless, regardless of party we do endeavour to maintain those friendly relationships without which parliament would be chaotic and ineffective. I know every member of the opposition joins with me in welcoming the Minister of Finance back to this country. He will have the opportunity today to answer personally for whatever may be said regarding the overtaxation that has taken place here during recent months.
The other day in opening my remarks I said that no Canadian would object to paying a fair share of the taxes necessary to run this country and to build up our defences. I am sure the minister has been back in Canada long enough to find out that everywhere in this country people are aroused, as never before, owing to the fact that in the past several months hundreds of millions of dollars more than required for civil expenditures and for defence have been collected by the government.
It is not as though a warning had not been given in this connection. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and the financial critic of this party, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), when the new taxation measures were brought in last spring warned as to what would happen, and pointed out that there was no need for this extra taxation. We objected to the increase in sales tax from 8 to 10 per cent. We said that could only have the effect of increasing the high
1722	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker cost of living, applying as it does to household furnishings, clothing, shoes and other needs. Not only would it increase the price index, but it would increase the cost of living; for in my opinion the index number does not represent the degree to which, in an individual case, the cost of living has gone up in this country.
The leader of the opposition and those who followed him in the debate objected to the 15 per cent tax on refrigerators, stoves, washing machines and the like. We objected to the 20 per cent added to income tax, the so-called defence surtax, and joined in support of a motion moved by hon. members to my left stating that that added 20 per cent income tax should not apply to people in the low income tax brackets. On every one of these matters the government and its supporters voted in unity for the additional taxation.
We dealt with the extraordinarily heavy tax imposed upon cigarettes and tobaccos. We endeavoured to show that there was no need for this extra taxation. The answer of the Minister of Finance was that the best estimates that he and his advisers could give would be that the surplus for the fiscal year would not be over $30 million. The government talks about using the surplus for the purpose of discharging debt, but they never said anything about that last spring when they secured the approval of parliament for additional taxation. There was no mandate on the part of parliament to impose upon the Canadian people excessive, overwhelming and unwarranted taxation at a time when the cost of living was as high as it was then, so as to have a surplus for debt retirement.
Yet, because of the government majority, numerous as it is, these taxes were imposed. And now the people of this country find themselves in many cases caught between the squeeze of rising prices and high taxation. I think everywhere in this country the Canadian taxpayer would like to know where members of the House of Commons stand on this question.
I intend to move in amendment the following:
And further regrets that Your Excellency's advisers continue to collect unnecessarily high taxes beyond requirements and have failed at the present session of parliament to relieve the people from unnecessary, burdensome and unjustified taxation.
The latest report of the bureau of statistics indicates that the cost of living is still rising. A major factor in this increasing cost of living is a government policy of taxation far in excess of its requirements.
It has usually been said that high taxation siphons off savings and meets the onrush of prices and inflation. With the government


today collecting hundreds of millions of dollars more than it needs for its purposes, this extra taxation is inflationary in its operation.
I repeat that Canadians are willing, in the interests of national defence, to stand behind the government and parliament, and will pay the taxation needed. But surely there is no justification, without a mandate from parliament, for collecting from every person in this country in a period of seven months $45 more than required for the purposes of governing the country, developing the nation, building up our defences and playing our fair part, and paying our share in the international sphere.
When the Minister of Finance announced his budget on April 10 last he estimated that the total expenditures for the present fiscal year would amount to $3,700 million and it was upon that basis that he was budgeting. The estimate was $1,664 million for defence; $1,923 million for non-defence, and $113 million for supplementary estimates. As it turned out the supplementaries amounted to $195,172,000.
To meet these increased expenditures the Minister of Finance announced taxation changes designed to produce actual additional revenues of about $405 million, which he estimated would result in a surplus of approximately $30 million for the entire year. But with every passing month the surplus gets greater and the government boasts of a month by month increase in the revenue. If revenues are maintained at the present level, and there is every probability that they will foe not only maintained but increased, the gross revenue for this year will exceed $4,000 million.
Do not let the government answer that by saying that the surplus is caused by the fact that they have not been able to get their defence mobilization under way as it was anticipated. Allowing for the expenditure of every dollar provided by parliament for defence purposes this year, and irrespective of the fact that government is behind in its defence expenditures, if they expend every dollar for which the minister budgeted the surplus on the basis of the present monthly increases in revenue over expenditures will amount to at least $230 million at the end of the fiscal year instead of $30 million as estimated.
This situation is serious. If the present rate of surplus continues to pile up month by month at the present rate it will amount to around $900 million at the end of the fiscal year. On the other hand, if the government even at this time were to expand its expenditures for defence to the amount that

was budgeted we would still have at the end of the year a surplus of $200 million beyond that estimated by the minister.
I want to point out that reduced expenditures for defence are not the only contributing factor to that huge surplus now being taken from the Canadian people under what I believe to be exorbitant taxes. The revenues for the entire fiscal year after additional increased taxes were levied were estimated to reach $3,730 million, which would result in a surplus of $30 million. Ordinary revenues for the month of October amounted to $352 million, making a total of ordinary revenues for the first seven months of $2,147,967,000 as compared with just a little under $1,500 million for the same period last year.
What does all this mean? It simply means that either the government guessed wrong or they did not properly place before parliament the facts when the support of parliament was secured for this extra taxation. I should like to read an article by Austin F. Cross, which I am sure every hon. member of the government has read, which appeared in the December issue of New Liberty magazine and in which the matter is set forth clearly, distinctly and factually. He points out that the government may call it taxation that has provided so large a surplus but in reality it is taking from the Canadian people money that parliament never considered was being voted, and that that is unjustifiable having regard to the estimates made for national defence and for civil expenditures last April.
It may be said that we are not overtaxed, but I would refer hon. members to figures which appeared recently in the Financial Post. In the article a comparison is made between United States and Canadian federal taxation and it shows that we in Canada are paying far more in taxes on many of the necessities required by the ordinary person than is paid in the United States. It compares the taxation on cigarettes, and I shall refer to that in a moment. It compares the taxation on automobiles, automobile parts, beverages, blankets, household requirements, and all of those things by the hundred which are used by the ordinary people.


Mr. Decore:: What about income tax?


John George Diefenbaker: I shall let my hon. friend put the figures on the record with regard to income tax. In the United States capital gains are taxed in part; here they are not. I submit too that it shows that the tax on many things that are so necessary in the home is not and cannot be justified.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
I should like to refer to some of the effects of this heavy taxation. Taxation in excess of requirements is an added factor contributing to the increased cost of living. We have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) in legislation to be introduced trying to find out ways and means of keeping down the cost of living, and other ministers in the government putting on additional taxation and doing their part thereby to raise the cost of living.
Governments are no different from individuals and when they have a lot of money lying around they consider it an invitation to spend. The non-defence expenditures which the Minister of Finance promised last spring would be reduced to a minimum have been increased and not decreased. The Minister of Finance has repeatedly stated that there was no need of a committee of parliament to be set up to cut down non-defence expenditures; that the government was doing their best; that they had committees and the treasury board and the like; that they had saved on civilian defence expenditures one and three-fifths cents on the dollar. Making allowance *'or additional provincial subsidies of $7-2 million; additional family allowances of $6-3 million; government contributions to the unemployment insurance fund of $2-8 million; old age and blind pensions, $3-6 million; general health grants, $4-2 million; not taking these into account at all we find that during seven months the ordinary non-defence expenditures in Canada have increased by $13-6 million, and this in spite of the promises by the government that in order to fight inflationary pressures civil expenditures would be kept down.
Another effect of high taxation has been increased lawlessness in this country. There is no greater invitation to lawlessness than unjustifiably high taxation in a nation which lies alongside another nation in which the same high taxation is not imposed. The tax on cigarettes in Canada is $11.50 per thousand or 23 cents per package of 20; in the United States it is 8 cents per package of 20, or $4 per thousand. Our tax on manufactured tobacco is $1.15 per pound and the United States tax is only 10 cents. On raw leaf the tax is 40 cents per pound in the United States and 10 cents per pound here. Tobacco products in Canada are subject to an additional federal sales tax of 10 per cent which is calculated on the total manufacturer's price. The cigarette tax at its present level is a detriment to the production of tobacco. It strikes a challenge to the existence of the tobacco farmers of this country and is an encouragement to the development of widespread contempt for the law. At the same time it has resulted in a loss of revenue to the country. Nobody has benefited by this
1724

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker high tax, least of all the Canadian people or the revenues of this country. No amount of government stubbornness can justify its continuance. I am not going into the facts regarding the extent of the smuggling except to point out that in the Globe and Mail of December 4 there was an article in which, a high ranking mounted police officer was quoted as saying:
. . . enforcement is impossible. Seizures were made from time to time . . . but even fines and the loss of trucks did not stop the smugglers. No individual could stand the losses, and the fact that men whose trucks had been seized appeared again a short time later indicated the smuggling was operated by a well-financed ring.
Cigarette smuggling-and I have heard something about it in the last few days-has become a national scandal with up to 50 million United States cigarettes being brought into Canada each month according to the estimates of qualified people. The increase in taxation last spring was estimated to produce greater revenue to the extent of $26 million by the end of the year but has resulted in a loss of $20 million to the revenues of Canada.
Someone has argued in justification of the high tax that in England the tax is higher on tobacco and cigarettes. That is true, but there they do not have thousands of miles of border. Cigarette bootlegging is now big business. What is happening teaches the lesson that taxation can be made so high that revenues fall. Taxation can be raised so high, as it has been unjustifiably in the last few months, as to impede and interfere with production. Time magazine sums it up in these words:
The flood, estimated at 50 million cigarettes a month, continues unabated. The price is too good, the demand too great, the border too long and too free.
This menace, this undermining of the law will continue as long as taxation remains at its present height. I suggest that the only way in which excessive government spending can be stopped-and I am not going into the examples I have here today-is to keep the tax collectors poor, and not allow them to have more than is necessary within reasonable limits of expenditure. I think the time has come to say to the government: You must do away with unnecessary taxation and give the Canadian people a break. Remove the sales tax on necessities such as household appliances, clothing, prepared foods and the like in order that a contribution may be made by the government to a reduction in the cost of living. Unless we are to encourage smuggling over the next few months, and in spite of the minister having said a day or so ago in Montreal that he did not intend to do anything regarding taxation reduction at the present session, the time has come to make
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
provision for the immediate removal of the additional taxation imposed on cigarettes and tobacco at the last session. Second, after securing the approval of the governor in council the government should ask parliament to reduce unnecessarily high taxation, in the form of the sales tax on necessities, to levels consistent with requirements for government expenditures.
I shall now refer to an example of the kind of thing that arouses the Canadian people. The government is spending with almost profligate ease, taking from the Canadian people hundreds of millions of dollars more than are necessary; but what solicitude over a citizen in Manitoba who owed the government $5.76. I am sorry the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is not here. Last Friday week the court of appeal of Manitoba brought down a judgment. It is one that governments can read with profit to themselves. This citizen's name is William Wood. On October 14, 1950, a letter was sent to him by the unemployment insurance commission stating that he owed $5.76 in insurance stamps, and twenty-four hours was given him within which to make up this terrible depredation at the expense of the Canadian people. He paid within twenty-four hours. On February 19, 1951, a charge was laid against him for not having paid the amount when he should have paid it. It was tried before the police magistrate on March 30, 1951, who dismissed the charge. Would you not have thought that was far enough to drag an honest taxpayer along the way of litigation?
The crown took him to the county court on an appeal and the hearing was held some months later. The county court judge dismissed the appeal. I do not want to mention this out of respect for the profession, but the Minister of Justice employed lawyers on the case, and against a man who dared to owe the Canadian people $5.76. The appeal was dismissed. Was the department satisfied? They went to the appeal division of the high court of Manitoba, and when you get into the high court, costs do mount. Last Friday week the court of appeal of Manitoba handed down its judgment dismissing the appeal. Mr. Justice Adamson and Mr. Justice Montague were in favour of dismissing it while Mr. Justice Coyne dissented. Mr. Justice Adamson said that the county court judge was correct in dismissing the appeal. Referring to the letter as a result of which Mr. Wood paid the $5.76 within twenty-four hours, Mr. Justice Adamson said:
That letter and the immediate compliance . . . should have been taken as settling the matter. That is what any reasonable or fair person would have considered the letter meant. However, the complainant Rudd, on behalf of the commission, then

laid this charge and has seen fit to press it through three courts. The respondent has remedied his fault-he owes no money. The charge was purely technical . . .
Apparently there is a threat that the crown is going to carry the case to the Supreme Court of Canada because, Mr. Speaker, there is some principle at stake. I ask that the responsible minister put an end once and for all to this nonsense of treating a taxpayer in this way who remedied his default within twenty-four hours; and that is what the court of appeal said. Mr. Justice Coyne, who dissented, said:
Further litigation would be still more unfortunate and not conducive to justice.
However, he said in his dissent that he felt the man had done wrong and he would have imposed a fine of $1 without costs. The court by a majority dismissed the case. When, on the one hand, you see a government unjustifiably spending-and I could mention examples of recent months, but I am not going to because there will be another opportunity to deal with the question of overexpenditure and unjustifiable expenditure- you understand why the Winnipeg Tribune on Monday last had an editorial entitled "Poor show by Ottawa Brass". The editorial reads in part:
What we would like to know and what a lot of people would like to know is how much these three trials cost the commission in court costs and lawyers' fees.
I think it would be most interesting to ascertain what was the amount of that wasteful expenditure.
I am asking the government at this present session to end this national scandal of cigarette smuggling that is taking place and that is resulting in law-breaking by thousands, while at the same time the little fellow in Manitoba for $5.76, which he paid when notified, is dragged through three courts in order to maintain the dignity of the law. If the dignity of the law is to be maintained for $5.76, there are immeasurably greater reasons for assuring the maintenance of the dignity of the law of this country by enacting legislation at this session to remove the extra tobacco taxes that have caused wholesale bootlegging and law-breaking. By doing so the house will be actually increasing the revenues of the Minister of Finance for the next several months of the fiscal year. At the same time, if parliament removes the sales tax in so far as necessities are concerned and the surtax on income tax, it will be doing something to restore equilibrium between what the actual costs of running government and defence will be and the amount of taxes that should be taken from the Canadian people.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), that the following words be added to the amendment:
And further regrets that Your Excellency's advisers continue to collect unnecessarily high taxes beyond requirements and have failed at the present session of parliament to relieve the people from unnecessary, burdensome and unjustified taxation.


Mr. Speaker:: The question I must determine is whether the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre is in order. It is necessary that an amendment which is moved at this time should be relevant to the amendment as amended. I am not sure that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre is relevant to that amendment. I am not making a ruling in advance, but it seems to me that it might be more appropriate if this amendment were moved when the main motion as amended is presented to the house. I shall be glad to hear hon. members on it.	;
However, perhaps we might consider it from a practical point of view. May I just for a moment do something that is probably a little unusual, and refer to the ruling which I made last Wednesday on the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater). Hon. members will recall that in making my ruling at that time, I said I had had very little time to study the precedents. I did refer to the fact that I could find only one instance in which a similar amendment had been moved. The other day, when I was reading Beauchesne's third edition, I ran across a ruling which was made by Mr. Speaker Lemieux on June 26, 1926. I find that a similar amendment was moved at that time. It is interesting to note that the amendment which was moved at that time, and which struck out all the effective words of the amendment which was then standing, was moved by Mr. Woodsworth, who at that time represented the riding of Winnipeg North Centre. Apparently it has been characteristic of the people of that riding to send to parliament men who have a very keen appreciation of the rules of this house. I recall that last Wednesday the present member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) argued against the regularity of the subamendment. I would like him to read the amendment which was moved in 1926.
On Wednesday of last week it was said that hon. members might not have an opportunity of voting on the subamendment which was then before the house; but if members will read the words of the Speaker which appear on page 629 of Beauchesne's third edition they will see that he also considered that question,

The Address-Mr. Abbott
Since my ruling of last week was an important one, with the permission of the house may I refer in this debate to my ruling of last Wednesday, that is, to correct my ruling by referring to the debate that took place in 1926. I think it might be helpful on some future occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I must dispose of the present amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Probably it should be moved, to be in order, on the main motion as amended. However, I think for all practical purposes it might be better to dispose of this question now. The hon. member for Lake Centre has made an address on the subject. I see that the Minister of Finance is in the house. He rose as if he were prepared to speak. Probably it would save the time of the house, without this being considered a precedent, if the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre were allowed to stand.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no quarrel with your ruling on the procedural matter. I had not given it any consideration myself. Whatever the strict legality of the matter may be, I agree with the views you have expressed that it might be well to dispose of the question now. I have not had occasion to speak to the house for some little time. In view of a good deal of what the hon. member for Lake Centre has said, it would seem that this is perhaps an appropriate opportunity to do so. I appreciate his courtesy in withholding the comments which he had to make today until I could again be in the house.
He has raised some very important questions, raised them with his usual force and vigour. They are questions which merit a reply, and that reply I intend to give this afternoon.
At the outset let me hasten to state the obvious. It is clear, of course, that the revenues which have been accruing to the treasury during the first seven months of the year are substantially in excess of those which I estimated when I delivered my budget speech last spring. It is clear also that expenditures, particularly in defence, are not running at the full rate which was contemplated at that time. Nevertheless, the criticism which has appeared with respect to the surplus which is accruing, and the alleged overtaxation, implies necessarily that in submitting these estimates last April I must have been either dishonest or incompetent. I concede readily that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) would not suggest for a moment that I possess the

first of these qualities, and I doubt whether he would press very hard the second one. Nevertheless I think that is the necessary implication of the charges that have been made in some other places.
Let me say this at the outset, Mr. Speaker. In the estimates I have placed before the house in the five years that I have been Minister of Finance, every estimate has been made with complete honesty, without mental reservations, and based upon the best technical advise available to me, either within or outside the government service. Moreover, I have made a practice of disclosing fully and frankly in my budget speech, and in the accompanying papers, the basis of my statistical estimates. In every budget I have explained and emphasized the difficulties of forecasting. I do -not need to tell the house again, because I have done it before, that estimates of expenditures have to be forecast some fifteen to eighteen months before the end of the year to which they refer. Right now we are, of course, in the middle of preparing and compiling our estimates for the coming fiscal year which will end on March 31, 1953.
On the revenue side, the Minister of Finance brings down his forecast of revenue in March or April. As a rule these forecasts are based on statistics, the latest of which are available for January or February, and many of them are still only preliminary estimates for December. So that as a consequence the forecast of revenue must look fourteen or fifteen months ahead. These forecasts are all subject to a change in price levels, shifts in imports and exports, the ups and downs of employment and investment, and other unforeseen changes in the economic climate both at home and abroad.
If hon. members will cast their minds back they will recall that almost every year, far from being charged with being too pessimistic in my forecasts, I have been charged with being too optimistic. I well remember that as late as March 1950 my hon. friend the financial critic of the opposition, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) charged me with being unduly optimistic. He pointed out that a small change in my estimates for that year, a small change in business conditions, could result in a deficit rather than a surplus. On the average, over the past four years, performance has exceeded forecast by just about 12 per cent. My revenues, over this period- of unprecedented prosperity in the history of Canada, have on the average exceeded expenditures by about 12 per cent. Expenditures are much more easily forecast because they are more directly under our control than- are revenues. In the past four years actual results have exceeded

forecasts by only about 4 per cent. All governments at all levels have been faced with these same difficulties, and I have been far from alone in underestimating revenues during the period to which I refer. In the fiscal years ending in 1951 actual revenues exceeded forecasts in the case of some provincial and other governments as follows: Ontario, 16 per cent; Quebec, 19 per cent; British Columbia, 17 per cent; Alberta, 40 per cent; United States, 29 per cent. This is against the average which I mentioned in the case of federal revenues of approximately 12 per cent.	,
As the hon. member for Lake Centre has pointed out, this year I forecast our revenues at $3,730 million. I told the house explicitly that this was based on the following assumptions: First, high employment; second, average crops; third, a price level not much higher than in April; fourth, gross national production of $20 billion. In my budget speech I went on to say that should production and incomes continue to rise beyond that level- as they well might-I should expect my forecast to be exceeded. Should they not go quite that high, our revenues could fall short of the estimates I was submitting. This figure of $20 billion was based on careful studies prepared by experts in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and it compared with a gross national product the preceding year of $17-5 billion. In other words, it assumed an increase during the coming year of 12 per cent over 1950, as compared with increases of 6 per cent and 8 per cent respectively in the two preceding years.
I said that of that estimated 12 per cent increase in gross production, about half was estimated to be in price increase and about half in volume. It now seems reasonably certain that our 1951 gross national production will be something over $21 billion, or an increase of about 18 per cent. In other words, it is about 6 per cent higher than I forecast. There have been greater increases in both price and volume than either my officials or I expected, or that any other responsible person could have estimated. I would not have believed it possible we could continue to increase our gross national production at the rate we have during the past four or five years. Therefore, unless there are other unforeseen changes-which I do not expect-I anticipate that our revenues next March 31 will exceed my forecast by about 8 per cent or 9 per cent, or by some $300 million to $350 million.
As I have said, normally our expenditures are much easier to forecast accurately, but this year there have been some unusual problems.
The Address-Mr. Abbott Apart from defence, and the new universal old age pension payments which will start on January 1, it looks as though our expenditures will exceed our forecasts, but only by 3 per cent or 4 per cent, and this in spite of higher construction costs than I had expected, and the further increases in salaries and in the pay of armed forces and the R.C.M.P. which will be announced shortly. Hon. members will do well to recall, in comparing last year's expenditures with this year's expenditures, that government costs have increased in the same ways other costs have increased. If you take into account these factors and the increases in the salaries and wages, and government services, it would have been a fairly creditable achievement to have held our non-defence expenditures at the level of last year. In fact, that would mean an appreciable reduction in government services.
As to defence expenditures, the actual expenditures on defence for the year which will end on March 31 were most difficult to forecast. A year ago at this time, when the armed services were presenting their estimates to the members of the treasury board, they honestly thought they could usefully spend a good deal more than the $1-7 billion which parliament voted. So far as we were concerned, it was not a disagreement on needs or speed. It was a matter of judgment as to how much could be procured or constructed in that twelve-month period. As the house knows, the final amount which was voted by parliament for defence was approximately $1-7 billion.
To my personal knowledge every country is finding it most difficult, almost impossible, to carry through its planned defence program at the planned rate; and we are certainly no exception to that general rule. Those parts of our program which are wholly within our own control are well up to schedule, but such matters as construction, which depends on imported steel or imported equipment, and on equipment and supplies which must be procured in the United States or elsewhere, either in finished form or in the form of key components, are behind schedule. The services hope, of course, that they can catch up a good part of that lag before March 31, but it is clear to me now that the defence votes which parliament appropriated last year will most certainly not be fully spent before the end of this year, although commitments will have been incurred which will fall due for payment in coming fiscal periods.
In saying that we have been delayed by inability to obtain certain essential supplies from outside, I am not casting any criticism,

The Address-Mr. Abbott of course, on the United States or on any other country from which we have to obtain these materials. It is a common problem, one which is shared by all of us. We have to take our place in the agreed production schedule, and having regard to the world situation we cannot always claim first priority.
What is this surplus that we have heard so much talk about?) I must confess that I have been somewhat surprised at what seemed to me to be the rather naive and erroneous inferences drawn from our monthly statements by people who really ought to know better. The monthly statements of the comptroller are, of course, completely accurate summaries of each month's revenues and expenditures. But surely all hon. members know better than to take one or three or six months' figures and multiply by 12 or 4 or 2. A most elementary checking back on published figures would save people from some of these erroneous inferences.
Revenues, of course, come in fairly evenly throughout the year, since income taxes were placed on a pay-as-you-earn basis. There is normally a slight slump in the summer and a moderate peak in the final quarter of the fiscal year. But expenditures are highly irregular and they have a pronounced seasonal pattern. They do not occur in a regular 8 per cent a month or a regular 25 per cent a quarter. The house will be interested to know that the past three fiscal years show the following average quarterly pattern:
April to June, 17 per cent of total annual expenditure.
July to September, 21 per cent of total annual expenditure.
In other words, approximately one-third of your total expenditures come in the first six months of the year.
October to December, 22 per cent of total annual expenditure.
January to March, 40 per cent of total annual expenditure.
The low figure for the first quarter and the very high figure for the last quarter show perhaps the most conspicuous feature of that pattern. That is due to two long established accounting practices in the government service.
By statute all payments actually made in April on account of expenditures properly incurred prior to March 31 are charged back into March. That means that the comptroller's figure for April budgetary expenditures covers barely half a normal month, while his March figure is, as a rule, about double a normal or average month.

The second point is that the whole of certain large annual expenditures such as deficits on government-operated railways and the like, government contributions to the superannuation fund, interest on numerous trust funds and the like, and on post office savings accounts, reserve against active assets and these other items are charged at the end of the fiscal year. The net effect of these two practices is that the month of March normally shows expenditures which are equal to those of any three other months.
All these figures are available from the comptroller's monthly statements and from tables which are in the public accounts.
If the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) will take the trouble to refer to page 18 of the public accounts for 1951, for example, he will see that last year our October month-end surplus was $363 million, that the peak month-end surplus rose to $649 million in January, but that our final surplus was $211 million. So that if I did not have a fairly substantial surplus by the end of October or November, it would be quite clear that I would be bound to run into a substantial deficit at the end of the fiscal year.
As the house is well aware, our accumulated budgetary surplus for the first seven months of this year stood at approximately $605 million, compared with 1 $363 million at the same period last year. That does not mean, of course, that we have on hand an extra $605 million in cash because, in addition to our ordinary or budgetary expenditures, we have had to lay out the following funds:
Millions
Loans to or investments in housing, railways, farm loans, foreign exchange reserves, etc	 $293
Cost of replacing defence equipment supplied from stock to NATO countries	 74
The house will recall when we transferred existing equipment to some of our allies in NATO, we set up a credit in a special account for the value of that equipment and that can be drawn against to purchase new equipment, but that represented a cash outgo but is not reflected as a disbursement in our books in the year in which the cash is paid out. The other items are:
Millions
Redemption of international bank demand
notes	 $ 7
Net reduction in matured debt	 16
Redemptions of Canada savings bonds and of war savings certificates	 131
Total	 $521
After taking care of these obligations we have left only $84 million out of our $605 million budgetary surplus.

We also have non-revenue cash receipts, such as purchases of annuities, deposits in post office savings accounts, loan repayments by other governments and so on, amounting in all to about $124 million, so that our actual cash on October 31 was $208 million above April 1.
Perhaps I might add here that during November we paid off $523 million of debt, but we borrowed $492 million, largely Canada savings bonds which were the only new borrowing during that period, or a further net use of cash of $31 million to reduce debt.


Mr. Adamson:: What were the securities paid off?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not the figures here now, -but they are readily available. As anyone who is familiar with conditions as they exist today knows, as things have turned out in New York, in London, as well as in Canada, we can congratulate ourselves, I think, that we have had a substantial surplus so far for this year; because if we had not had a surplus we would have been obliged to borrow additional new money to the tune of $300 million to finance housing, the C.N.R., and other government loans and investments, and another $200 million to meet maturing debt, or $500 million in all.
Those who know something about the bond market will realize that the marketing of an additional $500 million of new bonds during recent months would have had to take one or the other of two forms. Since there is no pool of idle savings in Canada, the sale of $500 million of Canadian federal government securities would have diverted an equivalent amount of savings away from private investment in housing, in municipal improvements, in hydro, or in oil or iron developments and the like. If there had been that much less private capital investment, obviously we would have had less employment, less imports, less revenue and a much smaller budgetary surplus. That would have been one way to get $500 million.
Alternatively we could have borrowed $500 million from the banking system. But that would have been straight inflationary financing under existing conditions; and I well remember the strong disapproval voiced by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) in August of last year when, for good and sufficient reasons, we temporarily financed a $200 million inflow of United States funds by borrowing $200 million from the banks.
So that our current surplus has been, in part, a reflection of inflationary pressure. But had we had no surplus the effects of those
The Address-Mr. Abbott
pressures on price levels would have been very much more startling than they have been.
Those who may have taken the trouble to examine the details of the public accounts will have noticed that there have been only two successions of years since confederation when we have significantly reduced our public debt. The first was after world war I, in the period 1923-29, when during most of that time my predecessor Mr. Robb was minister of finance. We had a succession of surpluses during those years totalling $276 million. Those surpluses equalled about 10 per cent of our revenue in those years, and during that period of time we reduced our debt by about 11 per cent from its -peak.
The second period during which we have reduced our debt has been the years commencing with 1947, since your humble servant has been Minister of Finance. In those five years we have had surpluses averaging about $375 million a year, or about 13 per cent of our revenue in those years. Those were the most prosperous years in Canada's history, and if one is ever to achieve any reduction in the national debt, then surely it is wise to do so during a period of prosperity.
As a matter of fact, as of last March we had reduced our net debt by about $2 billion or approximately 15 per cent, during the period to which I have referred. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has referred to existing taxation, and made reference in particular to the additional taxes imposed on tobacco. I am not going to deal in detail with the various suggestions he has made concerning reductions in this tax. I wish to say this, that as a general rule I think it is desirable that tax changes should be made once a year. It is extremely embarrassing for the business community to be in a period of uncertainty, wondering whether commodity taxes in particular are going to go off or go on at varying periods of the year. I departed from that principle on two occasions, one of which was at the beginning of the war in Korea and the second when we dissolved prior to the passing of a budget. But, speaking generally and referring to the general principle, I think it is undesirable that tax changes should be made more often than once a year, and I have no intention of recommending any changes in the tax structure until the budget presentation next spring.
The tobacco tax is a tax imposed for revenue. It is not imposed to prevent people from smoking. My hon. friend has rightly pointed out that, in respect of commodity taxes, as in other things, one can run into the law of diminishing return. The question of the tobacco tax, as in the case of all other taxes, will be considered between now and the

The Address-Mr. Knowles
presentation of the budget next spring. If it is desirable at that time to make any change, that change will be made. But I would caution hon. members against jumping to too quick conclusions about the effect of the additional tax. Unquestionably the consumption of cigarettes in particular is down. That Is probably due in part to the increase in tax, In part to the increase in price made by the manufacturers of cigarettes, and in part to the accumulation of inventories prior to the budget, both because it was felt that the tax might be raised, as indeed was the case, and also because in the case of one large producer labour troubles were anticipated and later developed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And smuggling.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The question of smuggling is a very important one. I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that when a tax or any other impost is pushed to the point where there is too great an incentive to break the law, then that situation should be pretty carefully considered. I can assure him and other hon. members that, between now and budget time, revenue officials will do their best to see that smuggling is kept down to a minimum.
That is the picture. I have nothing for which to apologize in my budget of last year. I have said fully and frankly that revenues have exceeded my expectations. But in the light of the responsibilities we have before us, and in the light of the inflationary pressures which exist today, I take pride in the results which have been achieved. And so far as I am concerned I am quite prepared to leave the verdict to time.
If one travels outside Canada, as I and a good many hon. members have, I am sure they will find, as I did, that Canada's record in the fiscal and economic sphere is considered as one which, without indulging in any overstatement, compares very favourably with that of any other country. Therefore, I deny, Mr. Speaker, that there has been any overtaxation of the Canadian people, and I am quite prepared to stand by the fiscal proposals I made last April. When next March or April comes we will see then what has to be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the new subamendment, and before I make reference to a further matter which I wish to discuss, perhaps I might be permitted to offer a comment on the position you have taken, sir, with respect to the subamendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). As I listened to you it seemed to me that you said quite clearly two things. In the first place, you expressed the view that this subamendment would have been more in
order as an amendment to the main motion as amended, when we reach that stage. With that I fully agree. But you also expressed the view that since the same practical result is obtained by deciding now whether or not this additional regret is to be added, it might be just as well for the house to give its decision now on the substance of the matter, rather than to have a long debate on procedure.
I agree with your judgment and your wisdom in that matter; and I offer as evidence in support of the position you have taken the fact that the record of the decision to which you called the attention of the house, namely that of Mr. Speaker Lemieux on June 26, 1926, occupies twenty full pages in Beau-chesne's third edition. That is to say, it took twenty pages to record the important parts of the debate on that point of order and the Speaker's decision. In other words, had we at this time got into a debate as to the propriety or otherwise of the subamendment, we might have had to amend the hours of sitting still further in order to finish this session's business before Christmas.
Perhaps while I am saying a word about this decision I might point out that although we were interested in your reference to Mr. Woodsworth, the point of order did not relate to Mr. Woodsworth's subamendment itself. Mr. Woodsworth's subamendment to Mr. Stevens' amendment apparently was not questioned but was defeated by a vote of 117 to 115. Then there was a subamendment by Mr. Fansher which carried, and then there was a later attempt to move another subamendment at a point corresponding to the point, at which we now find ourselves. That was made by Mr. Rinfret and a long procedural argument developed. Mr. Speaker Lemieux finally ruled in favour of Mr. Rinfret's subamendment. So far, that would seem to indicate that there might be propriety in the subamendment being moved at this time.
On the other hand, and this is rather unique, in Beauchesne's third edition at page 630 we find in small print at the end of that long recital a letter to Dr. Beauchesne written by T. Lonsdale Webster, who was then Clerk of the British House of Commons. This was in reply to an inquiry which it appears Dr. Beauchesne had sent to Mr. Webster, and it would seem from Mr. Webster's reply that he had some doubt about Mr. Speaker Lemieux's ruling. 1 note with interest the last sentence of Mr. Webster's letter, which reads:
So far as Mr. Rinfret differed from Mr. Woodsworth, he should, I think, have moved amendments by way of additions to Mr. Stevens' amendment when that amendment became the substantive question.

I shall not add to the confusion, as I think I have demonstrated my point with these few references. Had Your Honour decided to entertain a procedural debate as to whether or not this subamendment is in order at this time we would have been here for quite a while. After all, at some point or other, either now or later, an amendment of this kind would be in order, and I think it is well that the house be given an opportunity to decide on the substance of the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), and that is what you, sir, have done.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre and I listened also with interest and attention to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) when he tried to answer the charge, both in the hon. member's speech and in the amendment, that there is unnecessary taxation in this country at the present time. Despite all the figures he produced, despite the reference to the way in which money comes in at one time of the year more heavily than at another, frankly I could not see that the Minister of Finance was able to offset the fact that the present rates of taxation are taking from the Canadian people sums of money greatly in excess of what is really needed, and at a time when our people are having an exceedingly difficult time to meet the still rising cost of living.
At the end of his remarks the Minister of Finance indicated what he believed to be the principle to be followed in matters of taxation. If I heard him correctly he said he believed that as a general rule there should be tax changes only once a year. I want to say that the Minister of Finance and the government have another rule regarding tax changes. That rule is that there are to be tax reductions only once a parliament, and the time for those tax reductions is just before an election.
The Minister of Finance referred to this himself when he gave the exceptions to the rule of making tax changes only once a year. He said there had been two occasions when he had broken that rule, one being when taxes were increased because of the situation in Korea and the other, as he put it, in that interesting year of 1949 when parliament was dissolved before the budget was adopted. For a few years prior to 1949 the practice was to build up surpluses. That was part of the government's theory of cyclical budgeting. Suddenly when we were on the eve of an election that theory was thrown out the 94699-111
The Address-Mr. Knowles window and it was considered desirable to give the Canadian people substantial reductions in taxation just before an election.
We are back in the same cycle again. It would be interesting to find out just what point in the cycle we have reached. The government is still building up surpluses. Of course nothing is more risky in the political field than to make predictions, but I shall make the prediction that these surpluses will continue to mount until the eve of the next election. On the eve of the next election these surpluses will be used to bring about reductions in taxation.
When the minister brings down his budget in March or April of next spring, if there are substantial tax reductions because of this huge surplus to which attention has been drawn we will all know what it means. It will mean an election in June, 1952. If next year the Minister of Finance in his budget speech continues to assert his belief in the desirability of draining off these surpluses so as to pay off more of the national debt, we will know that the election is not yet.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I may fool you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will be very interesting to see what happens, but I believe the rule will hold so far as this government is concerned, that taxation changes should be made only once a year and taxation reductions are to be made only once a parliament, and that just before a general election.
The subject about which I wish to have something to say at this time is not unrelated to the fact that the government has quite a pool of money on hand just now, but it is a little different in nature. I refer to the plight of the retired pensioners of Canadian National Railways. This is a matter which some of us have raised on several occasions this session by means of questions on the orders of the day. We have asked whether the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) would soon be in a position to announce general changes in the pension structure of Canadian National Railways. In particular we have asked whether there would be any increase in the pensions of Canadian National employees already retired.
Thus far the only answer we have been able to get from the Minister of Transport is to the effect that he has not yet been advised as to what is the situation, but when he does get that information he will communicate it to the house. Let me read the answer he gave on one occasion which in substance is the same as the answer he has given every time. When the minister was

The Address-Mr. Knowles replying to a question of mine on November 15 he said, as reported on page 1044 of Hansard:
I can only reply to that, as has already been stated in the house, that Canadian National Railways pension rules are now under reconsideration, and my understanding is that the brotherhoods and the railways are discussing changes in the pension rules. I have not been advised what they are; but when I am, I should be in a postiion to give information to the house.
I emphasize the word "information". That is what the Minister of Transport has indicated he might be in position to give to the house this session. Information is sufficient if it is the right information, but I wish to point out that in my view the responsibility of the Minister of Transport and of the government goes further than the desirability of imparting information to this house.
I base that claim on certain statements that were made at the last session of parliament by the minister. He and others will remember that we had quite a series of debates here and elsewhere on the question of Canadian National pensions during the last session of parliament. Those in the house who took part in that debate were the Minister of Transport, on the government side, and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and I in the main on this side of the house. In addition to the discussions we had in the house there was a discussion of the whole question in the special committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government. One of the features of the discussion in the committee, and later in the house, was a certain letter which had been addressed jointly to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and myself by a trade union official on behalf of some of the interested employees. Copies of that letter were sent to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and to the president of the Canadian National Railways. It was thought by them that the letter was a suggestion to us that we should not be pressing this matter too much in parliament. I want to come back to that in a moment. I point out to the minister and to others that I now have before me a copy of a further letter written by the same Mr. A. A. Hutchinson, who is general chairman of the order of railroad telegraphers, urging the Canadian National employees affected to get in touch with their members of parliament and to get them to put pressure upon the government here in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the date of that letter?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The date of this letter is October 3, 1951. It is included in a mimeographed circular letter sent out by the general chairman of the brotherhood of railroad trainmen. It is a very interesting letter of three full pages which goes into the whole question of what is likely to happen with respect to Canadian National pensions. In the letter Mr. Hutchinson says, in reply to retired C.N.R. pensioners who are pleading for some adjustment of their position, that there was a meeting of the vice-presidents with the general chairmen and that certain recommendations were made to the C.N.R. board of directors which were considered at their January meeting. Then he says:
We have no official information as to what was recommended but unofficially we do understand that the board did make certain recommendations in regard to changes which would have been beneficial and these recommendations were submitted to the Hon. Mr. Chevrier, Minister of Transport, for government approval.
Then there is another paragraph comparing the position of the Canadian Pacific Railway with its responsibility to its shareholders and that of Canadian National Railways with its responsibility to parliament. Then there follows this paragraph:
We understand that the government refused to give approval to the recommendation of the board of directors and gave as the reason that "it would be contrary to declared public policy" as set out in a press release dated January 23, 1948 . . .
And so on. At the last session the Minister of Transport and the president of Canadian National Railways accepted Mr. Hutchinson as an unqualified authority, and I did not object to their doing so. The point I wish to make at this juncture is that it appears from Mr. Hutchinson's letter, which, as I say, is being widely circulated amongst Canadian National retired employees who are concerned about their plight, that the Canadian National board of directors did make a recommendation that something be done with respect to the plight of retired C.N.R. pensioners. But it is also clear from Mr. Hutchinson's letter that so far as they can ascertain the recommendation made by the C.N.R. board of directors was turned down by the government.
Therefore, as I said a few moments ago, the Minister of Transport and the government have a greater responsibility than merely that of imparting information to this house. The minister is not just an errand boy to tell us what the Canadian National has decided. The minister is the person who, with his colleagues in the government, makes the final decision as to whether or not anything is to be done on behalf of retired C.N.R. employees. I remind the Minister of Transport that he took that position in the house

last April 27 when we were debating this whole question. I am looking at page 2459 of Hansard for that date, and I note that he said:
This is first and foremost a matter for Canadian National Railways and its employees to decide, and that is exactly what Mr. Hutchinson says. That is exactly as it should be, because parliament has authorized the Canadian National Railways management to deal with problems such as this.
I agree it is first and foremost a C.N.R. matter, to be settled with the employees, but the Minister of Transport went on to say:
But if it turns out that they are unable to deal with their employees and they make representations to the government with reference to the matters to which my hon. friends have referred, then I think it is not only the duty but the responsibility of the government to decide whether or not it will revise upwards or take no action with reference to this problem. Therefore I say, putting it in its proper light, that this is a matter which is now under discussion between the authorities of the Canadian National Railways and its employees. It is being given careful consideration by a joint committee of the employees and the officers. I think, as the letter states, we should at least give the committee a chance to see what it is possible to do. If they are not successful in dealing with it, then I think it will be the responsibility of the government if Canadian National Railways should decide to recommend to the government a plan upon which both will have agreed, or an alternative plan in case both cannot agree.
I agree with the position the minister took last April, namely, that the people to deal with this matter first of all are the railways on the one hand and the employees on the other. But the minister also said last April that if the railways come forward with a recommendation it is the government's responsibility to decide what to do with it. He also said if the railways and the employees cannot get together then it is the government's responsibility to make up its mind what is to be done in that situation. The reference of the Minister of Transport to a letter in the quotation I have just read is a reference to the letter from Mr. Hutchinson who at that time took the view that at that stage of the game this was a matter to be worked out between the employees and the company.
Now Mr. Hutchinson says in the further letter to which I have referred that the information which has come to them is that, whatever may be done with regard to changes in the basic plan, there is nothing in prospect by way of any increase or adjustment for C.N.R. employees who are already retired. Mr. Hutchinson says that in a further paragraph in his latest letter:
We have been and still are proceeding to revise the pension rules and expect to have a new set of rules to put into effect soon, probably January 1, 1952, but these new rules will only apply to future pensions and will do nothing for those who go on pension before they take effect.
94699-llli
The Address-Mr. Knowles
The same Mr. Hutchinson who was quoted by the minister and the president last April sees what these retired employees are up against, and he goes on to say:
I feel quite sure that if C.N.R. pensioners are to get any consideration, other than that which is being given generally under bill 395-
That was last session's old age assistance bill.
-that such consideration must be given by the government of Canada in its role as shareholder of the Canadian National Railways, and if your veterans associations are to accomplish any good I believe you will have to work through members of parliament who have influence with the government rather than through C.N.R. officials who do not seem to be able to apply their wishes to the problem. If the general chairmen's association can be of assistance we will be glad to do so but about all we could do would be to add the weight of our appeal to the members of parliament to your own appeals, as our appeals to the C.N.R. on your behalf have met with failure on account of government opposition.
That letter is signed by A. A. Hutchinson, representing the general chairmen's association in respect of pension matters. Mr. Hutchinson was regarded at the? last session, I thought erroneously, as the government's chief witness in this whole matter. I regarded him as our witness, and now the matter is clear. There is the way Mr. Hutchinson now sees the position. He affirms that something should be done with regard to the basic pension plan so far as those still in the service are concerned. But, he says: "Despite our best efforts we could get nowhere by way of getting any changes for those who are already retired. We thought we had made headway with the board of directors, but that board has run into government opposition and so the only way you are going to get anywhere by way of any change is by persuading the government that something should be done for those men who are already retired". It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, before this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne comes to an end, I feel that I want to put this matter squarely up to the government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). I regret that the minister is not in his place. No doubt he is engaged in something that prevents him from being here. Just for the record I want to say that I did send him a note about an hour ago to the effect that I intended to raise this matter if I was able to get the floor. Nevertheless I hope that he will read these remarks and that he will take them into consideration. I have noted his positive statement across the floor of the house that as soon as he gets information as to what the Canadian National is going to do he will impart it to the house. Well, from Mr. Hutchinson's letter it would appear that that information is not going to be very helpful to those now retired. My fear is that

The Address-Mr. Knowles we will not get that report until a day or two after parliament has prorogued. That often happens with respect to statements that are unsatisfactory. After we have gone home, and can no longer say anything about it here, an announcement is made. I hope that will not happen this time. Let us have the announcement now.
I have put these figures on the record so often I certainly should not do it again in any detail; but in passing may I just refer to figures that were placed upon Hansard on March 12, 1951, at pages 1129 to 1131, respecting Canadian National pensions. These figures were given in answer to questions that I had placed on the order paper. Just to pick out a couple of examples, they show that as at that date last spring 3,256 Canadian National pensioners were drawing a pension of only $25 a month. They also show that a total of 7,269 pensioners of the Canadian National Railways were drawing a pension of less than $40 a month.
One of the suggestions that has been made frequently when this debate has come up is that these people would get some assistance, some improvement in their position, when the old age pension legislation was sorted out, including old age security for those 70 and over and old age assistance for those between 65 and 69. Well, the old age assistance provided for those between 65 and 69 is really of no help to these people who already have a little something. The means test is there, and these men who have even a small pension from the Canadian National Railways will in most cases be precluded by that small pension from drawing old age assistance. So far as old age security improving the pension position of those 70 and over is concerned, I want to say I do not think that the government, or any other employer in this country, public or private, should use the fact that there is old age security as an excuse for crawling out from under its responsibilities to its retired employees. This is a responsibility which still rests on the employers of these people. The employer is the Canadian National Railways which the people of Canada own, and which is administered under the direction of the parliament of Canada. These are our employees, and our responsibilities to them are such that I do not feel we can continue to allow 3,256 of them to draw as their industrial pension only $25 a month, nor can we allow 7,269 of them to draw pensions from the railways, for whom they have worked, of less than $40 a month. This is a question separate from old age pensions. It stands on its own feet, and I insist that the federal government has a responsibility to deal with it properly.


As I say, prior to the circulation of this last letter by Mr. Hutchinson, some of us had ideas as to what was happening; but we did not have the evidence in black and white. But now Mr. Hutchinson says it is quite clear what has happened. The Canadian National Railways was prepared to do something for its retired employees, those already on small pensions, but any recommendation they made, whatever it was, says Mr. Hutchinson of the general chairmen's association, has been turned down by the government. And says he, "We, your trade union representatives, in our efforts on behalf of the retired employees have run into government opposition." Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have raised the matter here to put the responsibility clearly where it now belongs, namely on this government and on the Minister of Transport who must be responsible for any recommendations in this field. It is not good1 enough to leave those pensions at those figures. That basic pension should be increased. It should be certainly a good deal more than $25 a .month. Last spring when we were debating this I suggested it should be $40 a month. The cost of living has gone up since then. I would suggest that $50 a month is a more reasonable figure for that basic Canadian National Railways pension at this time, apart from the service pension and any other provisions. If a change in that basic pension could be made, on the understanding that it would apply to those who are now retired, it would be meeting to some extent at least the responsibility of the government to those people; and I make the plea as strongly as I can to the minister and the government that they deal with this matter right now.
It would seem from the terms of Mr. Hutchinson's letter that an announcement may be made before January 1, 1952, which is not very far away, concerning basic changes in the structure of Canadian National pensions. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a tragedy and most unfortunate if, when that announcement is made, nothing is said as to the position and the plight of those already retired, and I plead with the government to deal with this matter now so that any announcement which is made will include both groups. Let there be improvements for those still in the service; that too is most important. But right now it is imperative that there be an increase for those who are retired already, particularly those in the lower brackets.
I wish to say a few words in that same vein with respect to retired civil servants. As hon. members know this, too, is a question which I have raised a good many times. It, too, is a question which the Minister of

Finance and others have said should wait until we have dealt with old age assistance and old age security. With respect to these retired employees I want to say the same thing I have said with respect to Canadian National employees, namely that it is not right for any employer, be he a private employer, the federal government or any other government, to crawl out from under its responsibility to pay proper pensions to its employees merely because the Old Age Assistance Act and the Old Age Security Act are now on the statute books of this country.
The last figures that I had with respect to retired civil servants are contained in sessional paper 102-C, which was tabled on March 12, 1951, in response to questions of mine which were made an order for return on Monday, February 19, 1951. This return gives a good many figures and a good many different brackets, but to pick out the significant ones I would point out that at that time-in March of this year-there were
9.877	retired federal civil servants. Of those
9.877	some 1,478 were receiving pensions of $39.99 a month or less. In addition there were 4,677 widows of retired civil servants drawing pensions provided by statute. Of those 4,677 considerably more than half, 2,647 to be exact, were drawing pensions of $39.99 a month or less. In other words, in both cases these are the numbers drawing pensions of less than $40 a month.
As hon. members and the Minister of Finance well know, this matter has been brought to their attention repeatedly. I have in my hand a copy of the correspondence exchanged recently between the association of superannuated civil servants at Toronto and the Minister of Finance. The letter to the minister contains a reference to the sympathy which the minister expressed for these people the last time a delegation met him, so the minister replied on October 11, 1951, that he still had that sympathy but he felt the retired civil servants should look for such improvement as they might want to the Old Age Assistance Act and the Old Age Security Act. Again, Mr. Speaker, we have here an example of an employer doing something which I believe is totally wrong, that is, crawling out from under his own responsibilities by virtue of a public statute.
I am sure that if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) were to hear of any private employer doing anything like that because of the Old Age Security Act he would frown upon it. He would say that this pension, small enough as it is, is being given to everyone on a national basis, and does not take the place of the responsibility of a private employer. I suggest that that applies to the
The Address-Mr. Applewhaite federal government as well. It is not good enough to tell these faithful servants of the federal government who are on these low pensions that the only supplement they can have is the means test pension between 65 and 69 if their income is low enough, or the pension which everyone receives at 70 years of age or over. There is a distinct responsibility there which has not yet been met. I plead with the government to give consideration to it.
There are other matters, Mr. Speaker, which occur to one at this time. Perhaps the way this debate is going this is not the last stage of this throne speech debate, so I shall leave the matter at that point. It seems to me, however, that His Excellency the Governor General will be glad his term was extended for an additional period of time so that he will be able when he leaves Canada to take away with him a unique address. As the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has pointed out, if the amendment as amended by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater) is voted for when we reach that stage, it means that the address to be delivered to the governor general on this occasion will be an address which says, "Thank you very much, sir, for your speech. It was lovely, but -." It will be an interesting point for historians to discuss in the future, as to whether the amended address was a vote of confidence or not. It will be recognized, of course, that it was just a bit of a trick, really, to get around the necessity of voting on the amendment which was put forward by my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). However, at the moment we have before us the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre and I am glad the house will have an opportunity of voting upon the substance of that subamendment, dealing as it does with burdensome and unnecessary taxation.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: The hon. member who has just spoken will forgive me, I know, if I make no effort to follow directly his line of thought. I realize quite well that anyone who delays the house in this debate at this stage in the session is most certainly not going to add to his personal popularity with this house. Nevertheless I intend to take advantage of the opportunity presented by this debate to say a few words about my recent visit to Canada's fighting forces in the Far East. I believe I should do this, because I realize that when the opportunity came my way to accompany the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) on his trip to Korea, it was not accorded to me as an individual but as a member of this house. I feel, therefore, that anything I may have learned or any

The Address-Mr. Applewhaite impressions 1 have gained should be given to this house and I would hope through this house to the country.
Let me assure hon. members that I am not going to discuss strategy in our conduct of the war. I do not feel qualified to talk on that subject. But I do feel qualified to say something about our men over there, having visited and talked with several hundred of them under actual battle conditions. I have a few notes here, but what I am going to give the house is a rambling account of our visit to these men and the impressions I gained from that visit. May I take a moment to tell hon. members that if at any time they are considering trying to find a travel companion for a visit to a battle area, they could look a long way before they would find a better one than the Minister of Fisheries. They will find that there is no terrain too difficult for him to cover; that there is no interesting spot which he will overlook; no person with whom one might converse with whom he will miss an opportunity to converse. But I should like to tell the house that he has one definite disadvantage in that he has an almost fatal attraction for enemy shellfire.
Our first contact with the forces was with the air force, who provided our transportation for the four days during which we travelled. I felt a little doubtful about the justification of some half dozen men and an airplane being tied up in order to take us around. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we accomplished a little practical good even there. The personnel of this aircraft remained with us throughout our visit to the various units, and had an opportunity of meeting some of the navy and seeing some of the army under actual battle conditions. Two or three of these men told me that they had a much higher opinion of the surface fighter than they had before they actually saw the army and navy under battle conditions.
As the house knows, in that part of the world our air force is restricted almost entirely to the transport command. It would hardly be correct, therefore, to say that we saw the airmen under battle conditions. But I must say it was impossible to spend four days with these men, more or less dependent upon them, without coming away with the usual impression with which one always leaves the air force. The first impression is the extreme efficiency with which they carry out all their duties, and the second one is the extraordinary courtesy which they always manage to show civilians, when I am sure there are many times they could wish the civilians much farther away.
Our first actual visit was to the navy, and 1 do not know whether I should mention the

port in eastern Japan. We were fortunate enough to find two of our destroyers moored alongside each other, and I am told I might mention them by name, the Cayuga and the Sioux. We arrived there late at night and slept aboard. The following morning the ships' companies were assembled in the waists of the ships and the minister and I were able to speak to the men briefly over the public address system of both ships at the same time. This is another example of those discomforts, I suppose, which our men on active service undergo. After we had spoken over the P.A. system the men on both ships went to their mess decks and the officers went to their wardrooms; and escorted only by boatswains, we were able to visit the men in their mess decks. In other words there was not a commissioned officer around; the men could talk frankly and freely, and they did so.
Naturally the first thing one was looking for was evidence of morale. There had been so much talk about morale that I suppose it would be the first thing in the mind of any civilian who visited any of our forces in the Far East. All one can say about the morale of the navy-that part of the navy which is under actual fighting conditions at all times-is that it is absolutely tops and could not be improved upon. It is no exaggeration at all to say that the general atmosphere exuded by all the men aboard the ships was one of cheerfulness; and that was not something that was put on. They were naturally cheery fellows. When they had suggestions to make-and they had some- or personal "beefs" to bring forward, they always brought them forward with a bit of a sense of humour. They usually made a joke of even their complaints.
I asked about their mail. Their mail is coming through regularly and speedily. They told us to tell the people in Canada that there was only one trouble with the mail, and that was that they were not getting enough of it. I hope that thought may be passed on and given as wide circulation as possible. We talked about their supply of reading matter. They told me that they were well supplied with reading matter but-and this might surprise some hon. members-they said they could do with a little better diet than a constant one of "whodunits". I would not suggest to the people of Canada that they fill up our ships with Shakespeare or the Encyclopedia Britannica, but I would suggest that our men in the navy would like some of the better and more serious reading matter which is available in Canada.
Then they had a bit of a "beef"; it was not virulent, but they brought it to me several times. There had been considerable sug-

gestion in Canada at one time or another that ours was largely a dry land navy. Shorn of its picturesque naval language, what these men asked me to do when I got back to Canada was to tell the people this: We have been at sea for 29 days out of every 30 since we came out here, and on the thirtieth day when we get on shore we are back on board ship at eleven o'clock at night-for reasons which are good, considering the nature of the port they are in. Your navy out there is a navy in every sense of the word.
In order that there might be no discrimination, we visited the wardrooms as well as the mess decks and, as this house would expect me to say, we found the officers on both ships to be an outstanding group of efficient, keen young Canadians. Doubtless it was because they are of that type that the morale amongst their men was so high. So after a short visit, which was only a matter of hours in duration, one comes away with the positive conviction that, so far as Canada's navy in the Far East is concerned, they are doing a worth-while, difficult and dangerous job and are doing it well; that the men are in good health and good spirits, and that they are not suffering from the lack of things which we might be providing for them but are not.
Naturally from my point of view, and I suppose from that of anyone else, the big thrill was to visit the forces actually in Korea. In so far as Korea is concerned, this is not a travelogue. I am going to pass up any description I might be tempted to give of the country, of the damage and of the appalling poverty which is evident there amongst the civilians, except just to refer in passing to the part Canada is taking in the relief of the Korean civilians. Mr. Speaker, it is a part as to which we may feel justifiable pride. That our contribution was the first cash contribution to that service is a fact of which we may feel extremely proud.
I should like to warn this house that the time is going to come before long when a great deal more will be needed than is being done at the present time. When that time comes, Canada should not hesitate to do much more. I know the conditions there are really appallingly tragic. For immediate relief UNCACK-the United Nations civil assistance commission in Korea-which is operating under the supervision of the United States forces is doing a fine job. It is doing as much, I suppose, as any such organization could do under present conditions to meet the poverty, the cold and the distress. It is getting to nearly all but not quite all those who need its attention. That brings to mind the fact that some stories were circulated- inspired, I think, in this country at one time-
The Address-Mr. Applewhaite of the callous Canadian troops in Korea, of the brutal attitude adopted by the troops of Canada towards the civilians in Korea.
Let me tell you a little story which came to my attention while I was there. At Seoul we have a field dressing station in a farmer school building. Near that field dressing station is a Korean orphanage. To the horror of the Canadians serving in the field dressing station it was found that not long ago two small children in this orphanage died of exposure. As from that moment, to the extent that they can do so, the staff of our field dressing station are providing medical services at that orphanage, and the personnel of our Canadian army have dug up out of their own pockets $1,000 for relief and comfort for that orphanage. That shows that they are not callous or inconsiderate towards civilians. I ran into other incidents, but time will not allow me to go into them in detail. I can tell hon. members of this house quite genuinely that they can be just as proud of the character of their forces as of their fighting qualities.
In that connection I think we at home should consider carefully and tenderly the necessary monotony and discomfort experienced by those who have to serve behind the lines. While we think, quite rightly, of the heroism and sometimes the suffering of those in the actual forces, let us not forget the fact that conditions are extremely unpleasant, and they must be hard, for those who serve behind the lines in Korea without the stimulus-because it is a stimulus-of actual combat.
We visited the Canadian troops on the actual line north of the 38th parallel. Shortly after our arrival in that area we were taken by our brigade commander to an observation post on the top of a mountain almost, you might say, between the Canadian and Chinese lines, where for some two hours or more we were able to watch what was going on while the locations of the various Canadian units were pointed out to us; and while we were safe in a slit trench up to our necks we watched the effect of the artillery from both sides of the line, as well as tank fire from some of the Canadian tanks. We were there. We could hear the colonel or other observation officer transmitting back to the guns or to the tanks the actual location upon which the fire was to be directed. Then we could see, almost immediately, the fire being directed on those locations. We had good reason to see for ourselves and to appreciate the efficiency, accuracy and speed of the Canadian artillery and tank fire-and, I might mention, that of the enemy as well.

The Address

Mr. Applewhaite
We then went back to those guns, and to some of the tanks, and saw the same performance in reverse. We were back at the guns when the instructions from the observation post came in. We saw the speed and efficiency with which the orders were handled, how the gunsights were corrected by some mathematical process which remains a mystery to me. In a matter of seconds there was the report back from the observation post as to where the fire had landed.
It was shortly after that, on our first day in the battle area that, due to the fact that the Chinese also have some pretty good artillery, and that our brigade commander had things to think of other than civilians in his hair, we were sent back some five miles to an area of comparative safety. But on the following day we returned to the front lines. It was then we had the privilege of meeting the Canadian infantry. We visited two out of three of the units in the advanced position. I am told that I may mention them by name. They were the R.C.R.'s and the Van Doos. Both these regiments were visited in their extreme forward positions, just at the back of the hills facing the enemy. The forward position of the P.P.C.L.I. we were unable to go to, due to the heavy artillery fire at the time.
We spent between one and a half and two hours with each of the infantry units, meeting every officer and man on the hill with the exception of those who were actually engaged in keeping their eyes on what the Chinese were doing. We went back farther to visit an advanced dressing station; and I would like to mention this advanced dressing station, because I think it would be of interest to hon. members. It had been moved forward to its then position only five days before. The station consisted entirely of tents. It was completely manned by army personnel; there were no nurses that far forward. This dressing station was a model of spotless cleanliness and quiet efficiency. If one had to be treated for wounds or illness out in the barrens of Korea, I doubt if anything could be put up which would give a greater feeling of confidence than that advanced dressing station being maintained some few hundred yards behind the Canadian lines. That, of course, is the second point for casualties. We did not get forward to the casualty clearing post right at the front line.
Near the advanced dressing station we visited the first rear echelon, "A" echelon of the R.C.R.'s. I should like to describe that camp briefly. It is known as Peterson's paradise, and is entirely a unit affair. As fast and as

regularly as conditions allow the men of this unit are brought back from the front. This occurs roughly at ten-day intervals. They are brought to this echelon for a twelve-hour stay. There they have a hot shower bath; every stitch of clothing is taken away and replaced, not by new but by clean underwear and pressed uniforms. They have in the camp-and I do not know where they got them-a Korean barber and a Korean bootblack. A man who comes in has his bath, gets a fresh uniform, a shave and has his shoes shined and buttons polished, and for at least twelve hours out of the ten or twelve days he is a clean citizen again. There are picture shows running almost continuously. They have a certain amount of sports equipment, a softball field, and so on.
I find it difficult to imagine anything more that could be provided, within the range of enemy guns, than is being provided at "A" echelon of the R.C.R. battalion. I had the idea when I went there with a cabinet minister that, so far as possible, I would let the minister talk to the officers, the top brass, and I would try to circulate among the other ranks. I started out on that theory and to a considerable extent it was effective. The only point was that before I had been there very long I always found the minister also down among the other ranks.
The point I am trying to make is that I talked with as many as possible of the men we have out there. I did not know their names, and did not want to know them. They could talk to me absolutely without danger of being quoted. I wanted to find out what they thought, what they needed and what they wanted. I wanted to find out what their much-maligned morale really was. I found out.
Living conditions in the front line of a war can never be pleasant. Our infantrymen at the front are living on the tops of hills in Korea, in holes or tunnels from four to twelve feet deep, sand-bagged around the entrance, and deep enough-they believe and hope-to protect them from enemy mortar or shellfire other than a direct hit at the entrance. There they must live. There is nothing we can do about it, as long as we have men under wartime conditions. It is unfortunate that they must live under those conditions. Their bunkers or foxholes are reasonably warm. Fortunately, due to the terrain and the nature of the soil, there is no seepage. If the foxholes are well drained on the outside they can be dry on the inside. There is no mud on the walls or floors. They are clean, because the men who occupy them are clean and keep them clean. The water,

of -course, is not safe to drink until it has been chemically treated. Under those conditions they live; yet they maintain a cheerfulness which, quite seriously, would put to shame most members of parliament at the end of a three months' session. One would almost think-almost-that these fellows were up there on a picnic. But one does not talk to them very long before he realizes that they know just how serious a picnic it is. They do not hesitate to accept the responsibility that goes with that kind of undertaking.
I asked about their mail. It comes through from Canada in approximately nine days. They say they could do with more of it. Their statement is that while their families write to them fairly regularly, other people do not. I wonder if it would not be too much to hope that, if I were to mention this fact here, it might be broadcast further; and could one hope that those people in Canada who went to school with some of the troops in Korea, or held a job alongside some of them, would sit down once in a while and drop a note to those fellows. Do not necessarily expect them to find the time to reply. News from home is the one thing that they really crave. Another suggestion I should like to make, and I hope some organization across Canada will take it up, is with particular reference to those men who come from the little towns and communities where the local paper is published perhaps once a week. Put the home town boy on the home town newspaper subscription list. That is the sort of news our men really want.
There is only one thing that is weakening or can weaken the morale of our troops in Korea, and that is to attack them. I make that statement most seriously after having talked to a great many of them. I say to the press and the public of this country that any form of utterance belittling the morale of our men at the front is the one thing calculated to reduce that morale. Those utterances, those cartoons, those little statements have got back to the men in Korea. I know that because literally dozens of them mentioned it to me. I would be ruled- out of order if I repeated the expressions they used in mentioning it to me, but the fact is that some of these men were hurt in their feelings and thereby not at all assisted in their efficiency when they thought that we back here in Canada should doubt their morale or their ability to cope with the conditions under which they find themselves.
I checked up, because I wanted to know, the needs of the men in connection with
The Address-Mr. Applewhaite smoking, and this reminds me of cigarettes. I must correct an impression which seems to have grown up. There are no Australian cigarettes issued to our men in Korea. Australian cigarettes are issued to our men in the hospital at Kure, to which I shall refer in a minute, and at the commonwealth relief camp or base in Tokyo, both of which are administered through the commonwealth by Australia. I do not want anything I may say to deter anyone from continuing to send cigarettes to the boys in Korea, because they can use them. But I can tell you that the minister and I went to Korea with our pockets full of Canadian cigarettes. For my part I had taken them from Canada thinking they would be a treat. I found -they were a drug on the market, because in Korea our men are issued with United States cigarettes. Not only do they have the Canadian cigarettes sent to them from home, they have them when they get out because there are places at which Canadian cigarettes can be purchased.
I do not want to make this controversial, but it occurs to me that at one time there was a suggestion in Canada that we should have a commonwealth brigade. To some extent that is what we have. It is an entirely commonwealth brigade in so far as it draws its supplies entirely from Australia, including cigarettes.
While at the front I asked time after time what we in Canada were not doing that the men there thought we should be doing. It is surprising, but I could not get a positive reply. I made inquiries about mail and cigarettes, and found that both those items were coming through regularly. What I want this house to know is that I made no effort over there to whitewash this government or any branch of it. I simply wanted to find out so I could come back here and from a back bench tell the people of Canada what they were not doing and what should be done.
I have found it most difficult to find anything at all. That there are things, I do not doubt; and that they will come to our attention from time to time is a certainty, but there was no noticeable need for anything that I could find. That is why I would like the mothers and wives and relatives of our men in Korea to know, because it is the truth, that their men are in good health and good spirits. They are tough like good leather is tough, and they are proud of that toughness. They are the best fed army in -the history of the world, and to that we must give due credit to the United States because it is through them that we draw our issues.

The Address-Mr. Applewhaite Their rations include free issues of soap, smokes, razor blades, chocolate bars and other items. In the way of advice to the people of Canada, I repeat the three needs so far as the men actually on the battleline are concerned: write often and not only to the members of your family; send them the home town newspapers; criticize the government or the department if you will, but do not appear to be criticizing them.
At the conclusion of our little visit to the front we returned to Seoul and there the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) was presented with a medal ribbon-I think it came from the neck of a bottle of some description- in token of his having spent twenty-four hours under fire in Korea. I should like the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) to bear in mind that when that ribbon was presented we were assured by the senior officers of the Canadian army that it was the only truly Canadian medal ribbon so far available indicating service in Korea. I am sure the minister will see that the condition is remedied before very long.
We also visited at Kure the British commonwealth overseas forces 29th general hospital. As our time was running short, the minister and I separated, and I visited this hospital alone. I had seen what we were doing in the way of temporary quarters in an old school at Seoul, and so had great pleasure in visiting this hospital at Kure. This had been built some years ago by the Japanese as a hospital so we started with a hospital building to go into. In general terms the casualties sent to this hospital are those whom it is expected will not be able to go back to their unit within fourteen days. In other words they are going to be hospitalized for fourteen days or more. Some are not sent to Kure for special reasons; they are flown to Tokyo, Honolulu or elsewhere. There were well over one hundred Canadian patients at the Kure hospital when I was there. There were two Canadian doctors and six or eight Canadian nurses on the staff. It is a truly commonwealth hospital staffed by Australians, people from the United Kingdom and Canadians. I would say that there, as in other places in the Fair Eastern theatre, there is great room for more Canadian doctors and nurses. I talked individually to over one hundred Canadians in that hospital. Part of the time I was taken around by a Canadian doctor and part of the time by the matron, who is a Canadian. We stopped at the bed of every person who had a Canadian unit identification hung on the foot of his bed and I had a little chat with each one.
There were a few sad cases. It is perhaps no comfort to know that there must be cases of that description in any war. You cannot


have a war without having some unpleasant and serious casualties. There were a few cases in that hospital which drew me up pretty short in my tracks for a few minutes, but I am glad to say that over 90 per cent of those in the hospital at that time will completely recover with no visible major maiming. Not all were battle casualties. There was a considerable proportion of accidental casualties, and some illness, although very, very little when you consider-the conditions under which these people had been living.
Here again came up the question of morale. With the exception of the few cases to which I have referred the hospital was a cheerful, cheery place, and I am referring to the attitude of the patients. I asked them my old question: What are we not doing for you that we should do? I could get no positive reply, but people here may be interested in knowing the two questions asked me most often by Canadian patients in that hospital. The first was: Who is the leading contender for the Grey cup, and the second was: What is the weather like back home? These are the things about which these men are thinking. Their mail is coming through well and they are well supplied with cigarettes and reading matter.
I asked one fellow: "How are you making out"? He said, "All right. Why the so-and-so wouldn't we be? We have Canadian nurses." I should like other Canadian nurses to remember that, because I think we could use more of them. I want to tell you of one case, a lad with a broken elbow and other arm injuries caused by shrapnel. He was a young fellow from Montreal. He asked me what the weather was like in Montreal when I left Canada. I told him as best I knew and made some inane remark such as: "I suppose you are hoping soon to see it for yourself". He said: "Oh, no. I was only up on the hill for thirty-six hours when I stopped this one. I do not want to go home yet. We have a job to do." And there are people in Canada who have dared to talk about the low morale of the Canadian forces!
The hospital draws its supplies through the Australians, and as many of us know the Australians lean heavily to mutton. I was a little worried in chatting to one fellow who was flat on his back. He was giving me a long line of criticism about the endless diet of mutton. I thought he really had a genuine complaint until I suddenly discovered he had finally got a rise out of the man in the next bed, who was an Australian. That was typical of the hospital. The patients would kid back and forth among themselves. If they had a serious complaint they turned it into a joke.

You learn one or two lessons, or think you do, from a trip of that sort. Hon. members may recall that when this debate first started we had an eloquent speech by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Cauchon) in which he referred to national unity. I should like to tell the hon. member that if he wants to see national unity he should go to the battlefields of Korea and see the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Princess Patricia's and the Van Doos side by side. He should see them side by side in hospital beds at Kure. I can assure him that none of them care a bit whether a man first learned from his mother to speak French, English with a Scotch brogue, or Ukrainian and then came to Canada and learned one of the other languages. There you have national unity and national respect. I did not hear anybody from the Van Doos complaining because some colonel spoke English. I did not hear anybody from the R.C.R.'s or the P.P.C.L.I.'s complaining because other fellows, who were doing their share of the job, learned to speak French before they spoke English. There are no language difficulties over there. When you get down to the realities of life people have no time to worry about those factors which unfortunately at times would appear-and it is only an appearance-to disrupt our national unity.
One comes back from Korea very proud of the Canadian forces. One would not be human if after spending a few days there, seeing these men in action and hearing the Americans, Australians and others talk about them, one was not also very proud of being a Canadian. You cannot go out there, meet these fellows and see them on the line and in the hospitals without feeling pretty humble in the face of what they are and what they are doing, officers and men alike, army, navy and air force. As strongly as I know how I should like to make a suggestion to the members of this house, the press and the public of this country. First let me make it clear that so far as I am concerned there is no reason why anyone should hesitate to make constructive criticism whenever it is due. But-and I say this only because it was mentioned to me so often over there-give some thought to the effect what you are going to say or write will have on the men who are actually doing the fighting and living in the mud.
We in this house regard ourselves as public servants. We know that we and other public servants are fit subjects for criticism and public discussion. It might be said that the Canadian army and navy are also public
The Address-Mr. H. O. White services and therefore they should be criticized and discussed. I do not enjoy it when somebody undertakes to take me to pieces or explain where I have shortcomings as a member of parliament, but how much more hurtful it is for our soldiers and sailors to be taken to pieces to find out what is making them fall short of what they should be as soldiers and sailors when they are not falling short of what they should be at all. If you and I are criticized, Mr. Speaker, we have our right of reply here in the house. The men over there have no right of reply. They can make only one reply. If their morale is attacked it is a suggestion that they are not the type of soldiers they should be, and the only reply they can make is by a demonstration of the way they meet the enemy and put up with the conditions they have to face. I think they have made the reply and made it very effectively. I left Korea with one very strong impression, and that was that the best morale in Canada is in Korea.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for entering the debate at this late stage of the session. My remarks are based on the unemployment situation in the city of London and the surrounding district. On November 19 I addressed the following question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg):
I should like to ask the Minister of Labour what steps, if any, have been or are being taken to alleviate the serious mounting unemployment in London, Ontario.
At that time the Minister of Labour replied as follows:
I do not think the seriousness of the unemployment situation is as great as my hon. friend implies in his question, but X can assure him that we are keeping in close touch wtih the situation.
This was on November 19, and ever since that day the unemployment situation has become more acute. I hold in my hand the figures as of December 1, issued by the national employment service in London, Ontario. Comparing them with the same date a year ago we see that on December 1, 1950, some 1,381 were unemployed. Today there are 2,857. This says nothing whatever about at least 800, and probably more, that are on a very short work week. It says nothing whatever about those who have not registered with the national employment service as being out of work. I want to point out to the house the industries that are most seriously affected, and I give them in the order in which they were given to me as those most seriously affected. The first is General Steel Wares, Adelaide street plant; second, General Steel Wares, York street plant; third, Kel-vinator of Canada; fourth, General Motors diesel; fifth, Eaton Automotive Products

The Address-Mr. H. O. White Limited; and sixth, Empire Brass Manufacturing Company. What I want to point out is the fact that all these companies are engaged in the processing of metals; in other words, they are firms that could be and should be producing the sinews of war.
In trying to arrive at the root causes of the situation two things of course come uppermost. One is the credit curtailment. We have inflation caused by this government; then where they turn around and try to fight it the men who are being injured the most are those in the industries that we need to keep operating to produce the munitions of war. The second cause is the shortage of steel. That of course goes back a long way. Steel is vital in our industrial life. Since I have mentioned that, I may say that I hold in my hand sessional paper 161, issued in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). It shows the imports of steel from the United States to Canada, and also the production in tons in Canada. Without going into detail about it may I say it shows that the imports from the United States have been going up consistently every month but one. Ten months of 1951 are shown in this return. It also shows that while there has been a slight increase in the production of steel in Canada, that increase is not very great. In fact it is hardly noticeable in our over-all production of steel.
I want to point out also that in the defence production report, issued for the period October 16 to October 31, 1951, only two defence orders went to the city of London in western Ontario, and those two together amounted to only $79,374. During that two-week period some $35 million worth of contracts were let in Canada. That does not of course include the $630,000 contract for the construction of a barrack block in the city of London. But I am pointing out that so far as steel and metals are concerned very few, if any, contracts came to the city of London. In fact one contract for $62,585 went to a paper box company, and the other for communication equipment amounted to $16,789. We have in the city of London a good many firms working in steel, yet we have idle men at a time when we are facing a relentless enemy and the sinews of war are steel. I would say that it is nothing short of criminal negligence to have idle men at a time like this when we are buying time, Mr. Speaker, in Europe and in Asia so the western world can prepare to meet the enemy, and also to prepare our defences.
Some will say the reason the companies in London are not working at full time, or that there is unemployment there, is the allotment of steel to essential industry, those industries that are working on war orders. Such is not


the case, Mr. Speaker, because I know of one firm there which has 50 per cent of its men laid off. They are working on war orders, and the men have been laid off because they are not getting the steel.
Another angle that is pretty provoking is the fact that if a steel concern in Canada is affiliated with a United States firm they are able to secure prefabricated steel from the United States, while the purely Canadian firms are left holding the bag and their men are idle. This is a very serious situation. We are again on the short end of a bad deal as far as arrangements with the United States are concerned.
I want to point out to the house the export of vital war materials that we produce in Canada in abundance. I am just going to mention two of them, namely aluminum and copper. We find that in 1946 we exported aluminum to the value of $56 million, in 1950 to the tune of $106 million and in the first ten months of 1951 to the tune of $108 million. In 1946 we exported $37 million worth of copper; in 1950, $87 million worth, and in the first ten months of 1951, $66 million worth. The United States are receiving these-vital war metals, but when it comes to steeL coming back into Canada we are being given a rather raw deal. I bring this matter to the attention of the house to point out that in London we have these idle men, and the situation is worse than the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) suggested in his reply .to me. I had the opportunity to attend a meeting in London last Thursday when industry, labour and welfare organizations, including Catholic charities, all met and this position was explained to us. The people in charge of the charities said that at the present rate of welfare being dispersed by these organizations in the city of London their funds would be exhausted long before the end of the fiscal year.
There is another angle to it that does not appear on the surface. Take a plant that is fabricating steel. Labour in the plant see that the supply of steel is running short, so they slow down in their work. That is what you and I would do if we were in the same position. They try to spin the work out as long as they can, and the net result is that our defence dollar is only buying about 25 cents worth of material. There are three things that could happen: unemployment, the high cost of the end product, or financial ruin for the firm. This is the situation many of these people are facing.
Rumours were abroad that it was part of government policy to have a certain amount

of unemployment in order to obtain recruits for the army. I hope that is not true, but it indicates how seriously the people are viewing the situation. They are calling it a lefthanded recruiting drive.
Black and grey markets exist. I was made aware of the fact that quotations on certain types of steel were in this ratio: the Canadian price for a certain product is 31 and the United States price is 46. This is an indication of what the cost of some of these goods would be when finished. I just want to draw the situation so far as steel is concerned to the attention of the house. It was brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who quoted the following few sentences from Time magazine:
By 1952's end. Jones and Laughlin will have spent $390 million in six years, boosted its capacity by 32 per cent. By the same time, Bethlehem-big steel's chief rival-will have spent $700 million, boosted its capacity 36 per cent since 1946. Inland is spending $145 million, Republic $250 million, . . .
This gives an indication of the increase planned for steel production across the border. Then, in Time magazine of December 10, 1951, there is an article entitled "Steel Surgery". It reads in part as follows:
After Washington fixed Canada's allocation of U.S. steel for the first quarter of 1952 at 415,050 tons, Ottawa gulped in dismay; it had asked for a rock bottom minimum of 527,809 tons. The news meant an unexpected 9 per cent slice in the overall supply. The government had long ago clamped down on non-essential steel construction. Last week it began to cut into the muscle of other civilian uses almost as ruthlessly as it did during world war II.
I would suggest that another item that is adding to cost is the fact that tenders for war orders require a deposit of 10 per cent. One department of the government under the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) cashes these cheques and apparently uses the funds as working capital, while the other department holds the cheques as a deposit. These two departments are under the one minister. I suggest that where the cheques are cashed the production cost of that firm is higher than in the case where the cheque is not cashed. The firm whose cheque is cashed has to pay a higher rate of interest than does the one whose cheque is not cashed. I have brought this serious situation to the attention of the house, and I hope the minister will take more action than he did when I first brought the matter to his attention.


Mr. Poulioi:: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.
The Address-Mr. Pouliot AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address. They did very well. Just before the dinner recess, I ask the genial clerk assistant how many members had spoken, and he told me that 157 had done so. Hence the mover and seconder have been congratulated 157 times, and quite deservedly so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can my hon.
friend remember when the debate began?


Jean-François Pouliot: Some time in the month before last. I listened with pleasure to what the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) said about Lord Alexander, the governor general, who is a great governor and a great man. It was my privilege to suggest some time ago that his term should be extended, and this was finally done. I am not going to suggest the name of anyone to replace His Excellency when his term is ended. That is a matter to be dealt with by the government and His Majesty the King. I have nothing to say as to whether we should have a Canadian citizen or a British subject to represent His Majesty the King in this country. I leave that matter to the government. The only warning I give to the government is this. If the suggestion made by some papers is adopted, namely that Mr. Arthur Meighen be appointed governor general, it would perhaps lead to a movement for annexation to the United States. But it is quite improbable that such a suggestion would be adopted.
I was delighted to pay my respects to Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth when she came to my constituency. I had the privilege of paying to her the same compliment that I paid to her mother, Her Majesty the Queen, when she came to visit this country a few years ago, namely that she had conquered all hearts. The Canadian National Railways did things well in my constituency. The station at Riviere du Loup was painted. The stations at Cacouna, at St. Eloi, and St. Arsene were also painted. As the station at Isle Verte was new, it was the big tank that was painted by the railway. They wanted to prepare the reception quite properly.
Mr. Speaker, we hear so many criticisms about everything that tonight it is my intention to thank the government and the whole house for what has been done for my constituency during these last few years, especially with regard to the fire that destroyed the village of Cabano and also the one that, a few days afterwards, destroyed Rimouski. There are

The Address-Mr. Pouliot many people whom I must thank on behalf of those who have rebuilt that village quite well. At first it was the army that gave great assistance to the people. Station CJFP at Riviere du Loup was there, kept the people informed, and secured some help. After the fire the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois) and I interviewed the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and Mr. Mansur of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to ask them what could be done. My good friend Mr. Wilbur Arkison, a prominent journalist of Montreal, published a front-pgge interview in the Montreal Standard three days after the fire. All the newspapers gave their support to the victims of the fire. His Worship the Mayor of Montreal, who is also the member for Papineau, organized a great meeting at the Forum to come to the assistance of victims of the fires at Rimouski and Cabano, and the net profit was between $6,000 and $7,000. My colleagues of the house were kind enough to direct people who were sending food and clothing to both places. A genial maritimer by the name of Alistair Fraser who is a dear friend of mine and who is a prominent railway man succeeded in giving Cabano and the Temiseouata Railway milling in transit rates, which were extremely helpful to the lumbermen of that part of the county. I remember the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was kind enough to pay a visit to Cabano, and succeeded in comforting the people. He wanted to see the extent of the damage, and he spoke to them in encouraging terms. At that meeting there were two local members of my com-te who were there to pay homage to the Prime Minister of Canada. They were two members of the provincial legislation.
A report was made by the commissioners early in May. There was an understanding between the federal and provincial governments with regard to the amount that was to be provided by Ottawa and the province for purposes of relief. I express my thanks to the Prime Minister of Canada as well as to Mr. Duplessis for what has been done in that respect.
Also I received word from Mr. St. John Chadwick, first consul at the office of the High Commissioner for Great Britain, who brought gifts from the United Kingdom to the people of Cabano. They were most generous gifts including some chinaware, some clothes, some shoes; all sorts of things. There were very precious gifts of silverware sent by the nobility of England to the people of Cabano and Rimouski.
I was there with Mr. John Lewis, deputy secretary of state for the commonwealth, who

came to Cabano with Mr. Chadwick. I attended the distribution of gifts from Great Britain to the people of my constituency. I offer special thanks to my colleagues of the House of Commons, because the whip, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay) gave me a cheque for $505 contributed for Cabano by members of parliament. Also our lamented friend, the Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, told me that he had sent directly to the mayor of Cabano his personal cheque for $50. Then Hon. Liaqua-t Ali Khan, deceased premier of Pakistan, when he came to Ottawa subscribed $1,000 for the relief of the victims of the fires at Rimouski and Cabano. This was most generous of him.
I must not only thank the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Quebec, but I must congratulate them upon the appointment of the commissioners, Brigadier Antonin Theriault of Quebec city and Mr. Edouard Laurent of Quebec. Brigadier Theriault was the representative of the Ottawa government and Mr. Laurent represented the government of Quebec. Then they had as a third commissioner His Worship Emilien Morin of Cabano, who did splendid work to assist his fellow citizens.
There are only one or two points in this connection I would like to mention. The first is that in those two fires the compagnie de pouvoir du Bas Saint-Laurent charged $26,522, and the corporation de telephone de Quebec charged $53,439 for damages suffered by them at Rimouski. These amounts were paid to these companies. Perhaps they got more, I do not know. On the other hand, I must tell the house that the compagnie de telephone de Kamouraska, whose president is Mr. F. C. Whitaker of Montreal, suffered damages to the extent of more than $4,000, by reason of the Cabano fire, but -they were generous enough to cancel their claim. It was their contribution on behalf of those who had suffered in the fire. Hon. members may judge from this the difference of approach in a matter of this kind. The compagnie de telephone de Kamouraska was public-spirited and generous, while the other two companies were very greedy. This is not new.
And, sir, I want to say something about the Canadian National Railways. I will tell you that all my life, especially since the beginning of my public career as a member of parliament, I have been a strong advocate of the Canadian National Railways, that big organization -that goes from coast to coast. I happen to live at a divisional point in the Intercolonial section of the national railway company. At the beginning Riviere du Loup was the eastern terminal of the Grand Trunk

Railway, before the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. If railway employees can claim seniority rights, then the shops must have the same right. The shops at Riviere du Loup must have seniority over all other shops of the Canadian National Railways. This is ignored. There are big shops at Moncton, at Point St. Charles, as well as at Stratford, Ontario, and at Transcona, which is not far from Winnipeg. But the shops at Riviere du Loup existed long before these others were built. No one spoke about them at that time.
We live in strange times, times of centralization. Some people who are called men of vision see only one thing, a huge thing, a tower of Babel; the bigger it is, the better it is. Well, that is absurd. Why do we, have a housing problem? Why did we have such a problem, especially after the war? It was more acute then than it is now, because some progress has been made, although matters have not yet been completely adjusted. It is precisely because of the ex'odus of people from the country to the city, due to that centralization of industry. I remember some years ago' I told a story of the Noiseless Land Company or La Com-pagnie des Terrains sans Bruit Ltee., at Quebec city. There were two gentlemen, two politicians rather, Philippe Pelletier and Mr. Perodeau. They formed a partnership to buy some swamp land near Quebec city at a very low price. Laurier was in power and they offered this land to the Laurier government. Laurier said, "No, I will never buy it." Then Pelletier became postmaster general in the Borden government, and as he was allpowerful the Borden government bought the Noiseless Land Company's property from Pelletier, Perodeau and company at a high figure.
After the swamp had been bought it had to be used because they were afraid of a scandal. So they built shops on that soft soil and after the shops were built they needed men and machinery. They took the men and machinery from Riviere du Loup for the new shops built on the Noiseless Land property. It was like the deportation of the Acadians. It was a great blow to my city. The shops continued to exist and some time afterward Sir Henry Thornton, president of the Canadian National Railways, decided to reduce the personnel of the Riviere du Loup shops to a minimum. I tried to argue with him but it served no purpose. But Hon. Charles Dunning, supported by the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, saw to it that there was no reduction. The men who had been sent away came back to work in the shops.
The Address-Mr. Pouliot
That was a great advantage, not because of politics but because the Riviere du Loup shops were an asset to the community. Afterwards the St. Malo shops were closed for railway business and this work was transferred to the Department of National Defence. At the outset of the war Moncton tried to place its clutching hands on the fine machinery that was there, but Mr. Hungerford saw to it that that should not happen and the machinery that was billed to Moncton was rebilled to Riviere du Loup. The men who had been forced to leave their homes had an opportunity to come back to Riviere du Loup to continue their work for the railroads. They do most excellent work.
That was the third time we suffered from centralization. Quebec does not need a railway shop any more than a dog needs two tails. Why? The St. Malo shops were built simply to cover a scandal under a Tory government.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A Liberal scandal now.


Jean-François Pouliot: No scandal. I will fight to
the death to maintain the rights of my constituents who continue to do splendid work at Riviere du Loup for the Canadian National Railways. I am not impressed by the advocates of centralization who are bringing about the downfall of the railway. We are asking for two shifts, a day shift and a night shift. If we have the number of men that we need at Riviere du Loup we will be able to compete with any shops anywhere on the Canadian National Railways. We are between the Point St. Charles and Moncton shops, between New Brunswick and Montreal. I am a friend of the maritimes and I am ready to co-operate with them provided they do not try to cut our throats.


Mr. Brooks:: They would never think of
that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope not. We have a right
to live and we have a right to defend what exists for the benefit not of the local community but of the country at large. So much is that the case that very often work that is badly done at Moncton is sent to Riviere du Loup to be fixed up by the railroad men there.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is very seldom.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is the reason I am so
proud of the men whom I have the honour to represent in parliament. I am casting no reflection upon the maritimes. This shows that the men -at Riviere du Loup are just as good as those in the maritimes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think the hon. member
should give instances of that inferior work. I doubt very much if he can.

The Address-Mr. Pouliot


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sorry that the time at
my disposal is -not long enough to permit me to mention all those cases.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is a very good argument.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. I hope my hon. friend will be good enough to stop at Riviere du Loup the next time he passes that way and I will bring him to the shops where he can meet the men who witnessed these incidents. They are in a better position than I to give specific details. I have never said anything in the house that I did not believe was accurate.
Not only do we want to have two shifts at Riviere du Loup instead of one; it is also important that the work started last summer by the Canadian National Railways to repair the right of way of the Temiscouata railway be continued next year. Why should that be done? There is only one line on the Intercolonial between Montreal and Levis and Halifax, which line runs through Moncton. It is essential that there be a double line from Riviere du Loup onward and the Temiscouata railroad should be repaired so it can serve to its utmost capacity. A highway, which is part of highway No. 2 between Toronto and Halifax, has been completed and will be paved next year. It is one of the finest highways in Canada. The scenery is just as grand at that north of Montreal with mountains and large lakes, such as lake Temiscouata. But this is lumbering country. Thanks to what has been done by Mr. Alistair Fraser, a former vice-president of the Canadian National-and I give credit to the management for this-the milling in transit rate given to lumber producers near the Temiscouata line and in the back country would do marvels if they were supplied with enough cars. I could mention some prominent lumbermen in my part of the country. One of them is well known throughout the country because he is a former president of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association. I refer to Mr. Raoul Guerette of Estcourt who asked the railway last winter for 5,000 cars to ship lumber from Whitworth to other points. Whitworth is on the Temiscouata line. He could not get all the cars. At the meetings of the railways and shipping committee last session I questioned Mr. Dingle about it. I knew very well it was true because I was the one who sent a wire to the management on behalf of Mr. Guerette to have the 5,000 cars sent there.
The Temiscouata railway is serving a purpose. We hear about the claims for improvement that come from various parts of the country. Members ask many things from the government. I make my claim, and I am


sincere, honest and earnest about it. I am sure the government will support my request because it is in the public interest. I want the completion of the repairing of the track of the Temiscouata railway so that it can be used for heavy traffic. There is supposed to be an extension of the Matane railway to Gaspe. I have no objections to it, but if there is enough money to continue the Matane branch to Gaspe there must be enough to finish the Temiscouata line so it will give the railway the profit it is entitled to get from it. I will have other occasions to mention this matter, but I rely on the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), the government and the whole house to give us what we are entitled to have.
There are maritime rights. There are also Temiscouata rights and the rights of every other constituency in this country. I am only too proud to be the advocate of the rights of Temiscouata and to defend my constituents. Once I attended the blessing of the cornerstone of a hospital, and the bishop was there. I told him: Sir, you are the spiritual father of these nice people; I am their temporal father. You look after their interests in heaven and I look after their interests in this world. I am sure I shall have the support of the government and the house in the redressing of all wrongs and seeing to it that Temiscouata is not treated as a country cousin.
The last thing I have to say is about the pensions of railway employees. I discussed the matter in the railways and shipping committee last year. The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Dube) made some very good speeches about it. I refer to the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway employees provident fund. There are 4,850 contributors and 3,300 pensioners. Monthly payments are $300,000. There are 2,200 who receive more than $90, 650 who receive from $50 to $90 and 450 who receive from $30 to $50. It is not much when we think of it. That is another matter that I brought to the attention of the management, and it is a shame.
Before the Temiscouata railway was purchased by the government it was operating in great difficulties. There are some men who after working for the Temiscouata railway for half a century receive much less than $30 a month as a pension. They receive $5. The management of the Canadian National say they have no responsibility. How can that be? The monthly cheques of $5 are signed by the Canadian National Railways. It is a shame, and any other organization would

increase these pensions. There are other things that I might say. I do not envy anyone what he has got for his constituency. The government looked after Temiscouata. Les electeurs de mon comte have received due consideration in the applications they have made, and they are among those in the country who every time thank not only the government but the Prime Minister and the other ministers concerned for what they do for them. It is a very fine tradition and they never fail.
But, sir, I am sure after the expose of the facts that I have related to the house tonight they will again have occasion to thank the government and also the Canadian National Railways. We are not opposed to the railways. We do not want them to do anything that is not in the public interest, but we want them to serve every part of the country as well as possible. My friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) has just taken his seat. He is doing something for Temiscouata. He built a fine wharf at Riviere du Loup. He has just bought a nice tract of land for a public building which is required for the post office, the unemployment insurance commission, the customs, the mounted police and other departments. With the support of my hon. colleagues, I am sure a fine building will be erected on that land in the very near future.
I also want an airport at Riviere du Loup for civilian use and for purposes of military defence. It is time to have it. All the plans are ready, and I am sure it will come in due course. I am just about through. I thank the house for their kind attention and, moreover, the inspiration my colleagues have given me while I have been speaking. I cannot pay a better compliment to my colleagues than to say that tonight I felt just as much at home as if I had been in my own constituency.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the opportunity tonight to draw your attention to the fact that persecution of Canadian nationals by the Chinese communists is increasing at an alarming rate. One week ago today it was drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister that two Canadian nuns had been sentenced to five years imprisonment and three other Canadian nuns had been ordered deported on the fantastic charge that they had murdered children under their care.
It is obvious from the evidence which was presented, at what passes for a trial in communist countries, that these children were past all hope of recovery when they were delivered to the orphanage, and that it was
The Address-Mr. Hees only the Christianity of those nuns which caused them to admit those children and do what they could for them whilst life still remained.
The evidence that these five nuns are completely innocent is overwhelming, and does not need to be elaborated at this time. What the Chinese communists violently objected to was the fact that these nuns were teaching and demonstrating Christianity.
Following this outrage, we read in this morning's paper that two nuns and a priest were forced to exhume children's bodies in the area near Canton. They were forced to work twelve hours a day for twelve days, without rest and with very little food, and the citizens in the vicinity were encouraged to taunt them while they were at their task.
Again in this morning's paper we read that a Canadian priest, Right Rev. Gustave Prevost, was arrested two months ago by the Chinese communists and is now reported as having confessed to having been a spy. Those who are familiar with communist methods will realize that whatever false confession he is claimed to have given could only have been forced from him by privation and torture.
I believe that the time has come for the government to tell the Canadian people what steps it plans to take to protect Canadian citizens against the kind of outrages I have just described.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: After listening to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) I am sure that the few words I have to say tonight will be more or less in order. He spoke about the various things that were going on in China, and that brings me to say that here in the house we were lobbied today by a group of people who were representing the peace congress. This afternoon I had a group of them in my room for about an hour, and after letting each one say what he had to say I had my turn in questioning them. To be truthful, I believe that some of these people are sincere in their efforts to obtain peace. When I questioned some of them I asked point-blank whether there were any communists in their organization, and I was informed that there were.
They wanted to know what members of parliament were doing to bring peace throughout the world. I told them that Canada, representing approximately 15 million people, could not bring about peace by itself, but that I had every confidence in the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), through whom Canada speaks, and in our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and I was sure that we were doing everything we could to preserve peace.

The Address-Mr. Sinnott
They asked me questions; they asked whether I did not think it would be far better if instead of spending what we are spending now on arms we spent it on peaceful purposes. I think we tall agree on that, but I asked them how it was that our enemy, or what we think is our enemy at the present time, was building up armed forces of over 2,800,000 men at the present time, and that we did not have the right to go in there to see at what rate they were building up those arms and other weapons of war. I also told them that from my experience in many disputes in our own councils at home I thought it could be done better by negotiation than with guns.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The peacemaker.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: In a good many cases, yes. That is what our Secretary of State for External Affairs is trying to do. He is trying to obtain peace at almost any price, but not at the price of the Russians. If every member of the house were to inform what I call these misinformed people who have gone to the trouble and expense of coming to Ottawa to further their efforts, much good would be done. I asked them how they got their funds to come. They said they got them through their own organization; that they had no direct contact with Russia whatsoever, and therefore were on their own. It is up to every member of this house to inform these people that they cannot obtain peace as long as they have communists in their organization. When they left my room the suggestion I gave them was that before they would make any headway in obtaining peace in the world they first had to rid their organization of communists.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: During the sixteen years of my membership in this house I have never yet undertaken to tell the members of the house about my particular constituency. I believe it would be well for me in a short time tonight to depart from that custom which I have established and give the members some idea of the kind of disaster whioh has overtaken many areas in Alberta.
Normally my constituency is one of the most prosperous in the dominion, judged from the amount of income tax my constituents pay, and altogether it is rather remarkable for the amount of well-being which prevails there. Here are some of the things that have happened this year:	In the first
place, we had rain in the spring which delayed seeding a month. Everybody who knows anything about agriculture understands how serious that is. We could have recovered from that quite readily, I believe, if we had had a chance, but we did not have a chance.


It kept on raining too often all summer long, thereby delaying maturity. Although the crop, with abundant rainfall and the kind of weather we generally have there in respect of sunlight and so on, was excellent, yet it was not harvested. Snow laid very much of it down before it could be cut. Much of the grain that was not laid down by snow had been swathed, and consequently was subject to the deteriorating influence of too much moisture during rather warm weather while in contact with the soil. In most cases what was harvested was too damp to be stored with safety. The result was that, in a large measure, people lost their grain crop.
Ordinarily, in my constituency, a great deal of hay is produced. We had a very fine crop because of the rain, but almost as though there had been a committee of fiends appointed to supervise what went on during the summer, we had rain just often enough to catch every cutting of hay in the windrow and destroy it. Some of you have had that experience; that condition followed us right through the season. The result was that most of the hay was spoiled in the windrow or in the bundle. A number of people are now beginning to bind the hay in bundles for protection, but the bundles were spoiled; they turned just as black as a stove. What little hay was harvested and stacked in good condition was utterly destroyed by a heavy rain in September, which soaked through from the top of the stack to the ground. In a district that does a great deal of livestock raising, hon. members can realize how tragic that experience was.
There are three'sugar beet factories in my constituency. Normally the beet crop is the surest crop the people have, and this is especially true of the irrigated areas. Beet germination was delayed because of the wet weather I spoke about, and in some places there was so much dampness that the young beets were killed when they first came up. The beets did not progress as they should have, and when harvesting time arrived the weather was so wet it was exceedingly difficult to harvest the beets. Many of the growers have beet harvesting machines which were unable to function because of the moisture in the soil. Where they did function there was great expense in harvesting the beets. Finally, a great number of beets were frozen in the ground. The loss in the beet industry has been severe.
My constituency is one of the best in Canada for producing cattle. There are many ranchers, and they would have experienced a successful season because of the fine pasture during the summer except for the fact that the hay crop was destroyed. Then it was impossible to harvest the grain crop

and the ranchers were unable to get access to the straw upon which many of them depend for carrying their animals through. The result has been that many of the stockmen have been forced to get rid of their stock just in the year they were depending upon stock because of the losses in other crops upon which they relied. Those cattlemen who usually pasture their stock in the fields after the grain is harvested were unable to do so this year because much of the grain lay either uncut or in the swath. If they turned their stock into the field they would founder by eating too much of the grain.
In my area there is a good deal of sheep feeding and sheep raising. Ordinarily the feeders turn their sheep into the fields to pasture on the beet tops which are left in the fields after the beets are harvested. Those who have sheep are in serious difficulties because of the poor beet harvest, and in some cases are being forced to dispose of their flocks.
One of the major industries is the feeding of beef cattle and sheep during the winter. The beet pulp which comes from the manufacture of sugar from beets is probably the finest feed for cattle that is known to man. The pulp alone is not so very good for the cattle, and it is necessary to have with it hay or straw. This year the hay and straw are lacking or have to be brought great distances at tremendous cost. The result will be that this major industry will be largely a failure this year, except in a very few cases.
I believe this picture, a rather gloomy one, which I have drawn of my constituency gives some idea of the suffering of the people in Alberta. Something ought to be done. I do not know what the government has in mind, but it appears to me to be almost an emergency. It should be called at least a provincial emergency, but it is beyond the financial competence of the province to deal with it. It seems to me it becomes almost a national emergency, especially when we recall that Saskatchewan is afflicted almost as seriously as Alberta.
May we go back to the discussions of last spring and recall that the farmers were able to establish that, as a result of the sale of wheat under the British-Canadian wheat agreement, they had lost money. This was established largely through such spokesmen as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and others. Considering all the factors which entered into the situation, it was proved that the farmers lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
It will be recalled that the government listened to their appeals to the extent of
The Address-Mr. Blackmore contributing $65 million towards reimbursing the farmers for those losses. It will be recalled that there was talk of $48 million being paid as compensation for another disability which the farmers suffered. Members from those areas continued to discuss the $48 million question until I was ruled out of order on April 6 for undertaking to discuss it. An amendment had been moved by the C.C.F. calling for payment of the $48 million, and when the vote was taken on that amendment further discussion of the $48 million was ruled out. That might have been a contribution to the well-being of the farmers and it might not, depending on how one looked at it.
I wonder if it would not be wise for us to consider the advisability of going back and taking another look at that $48 million proposition., to see whether or not it would be a good thing for this government now to pay that amount to western farmers. It would give those who are suffering at least some money with which to buy the children something for Christmas, and some money with which to help the merchants who are almost in despair in my constituency because they have advanced credit to the farmers, hoping for a crop, and now find themselves in the grip of the wholesalers and utterly lost to know where to turn in order to be able to carry on until spring. In that respect $48 million would help all the way around.
If I may be pardoned for reading from my remarks last spring, I should like to refer to page 1300 of Hansard of the first session of 1951. On March 15 I closed my speech with these words:
As I have previously argued, the wheat producers ought to receive compensation to the extent of at least 25 cents per bushel. The people of Canada through the dominion government are in duty bound to pay that 25 cents. Britain, let me repeat, has not the least scintilla of a moral obligation in any shape or form in connection with reimbursing Canadian farmers for the losses they have sustained by reason of the British-Canadian wheat agreement.
I had argued that matter so fully, I think, that there could be no answer to the argument I had adduced showing that the British had no obligation, contractual or moral, in any way.
Then, if I may, I should like to turn to page 1716 of Hansard of April 6, and read my closing remarks on that occasion:
As I say, I am closing my remarks tonight, but this is not the last I am going to say in advocacy of the proposition that the dominion government at an early date contribute $48 million more to the pool fund for the farmers of western Canada.
Tonight I am making good that promise. Inasmuch as all this is more than six months old, it might be wise for us to give some attention to the story behind the $48 million so that people who are not familiar with

The Address-Mr. Blackmore the situation will be able to understand what it is all about. What is the story behind this $48 million request?
Between March 1, 1945 and February 17, 1947, some 160 million bushels of wheat were consumed by Canadians. The wheat board sold this wheat to Canadian millers at 77-3/8 cents per bushel. The Canadian government paid the wheat board an additional 47-5/8 cents per bushel, making a total of $1.25 per bushel to go into the fund from which the farmers were to be paid, all that they were to get by reason of the sale of wheat to Britain during the four-year period. If that wheat had been sold to Britain the farmers would have received $1.55 per bushel. If sold to any other nation but Canada the farmers would have received more than. $1.55 a bushel, for then their wheat would have become class II wheat which in many oases sold at a much higher figure than $1.55. The farmers therefore lost at least 30 cents on every one of those 160 million bushels of wheat which the Canadian people consumed. In other words they lost .160 million times 30 cents, or $48 million.
As it worked out, this $48 million was a definite subsidy paid by the farmers to bring down the price of bread, or at least the price of the wheat that entered into the bread which Canadians ate during the period I have indicated.
The farmers not only paid this $48 million as a direct consumers' subsidy to bring down the price of bread; they also paid, through their taxes, a share of the 47-5/8 cents a bushel which the Canadian government paid the wheat board to help make up the $1.25. Surely the farmers are entitled to that $48 million! I do not think any line of reasoning can be advanced or any evidence can possibly be adduced by anyone which can show that the conclusion I have drawn is unsound.
When the government last spring paid the $65 million to the farmers, many hon. members argued that it ought not to have been paid. Hon. members of the house can recall men who rose in their places and sincerely argued in that way. Most of those men felt that the dominion had no obligation to pay this money.
What sort of reasoning influenced hon. members in opposing assistance to the farmers then? There were several considerations. By members of the cabinet and others it was argued that the British-Canadian wheat agreement was an experiment in price and market stabilization. It was therefore argued that what the farmers lost was a sort of premium such as men would pay on an insurance policy to guarantee that they would have markets and reasonably stable

prices. I was not impressed with the argument, but a good many hon. members were.
Again it was argued that if the 600 million bushels of wheat that Canada sold to Britain during the four years had been thrown on the markets of the world, the price of class II wheat would have been forced down and consequently it would have been impossible to show that the farmers had lost money by selling to Britain at $1.55. The general idea seemed to be that it would be quite impossible to tell how far the price would have been forced down, and that it might possibly have been forced down even below $1.55. This thought seemed to be in men's minds.
Then others argued that if Canada had not sold the 600 million bushels to Britain she probably could not have sold that wheat at all, but would have found her wheat crowded out of the world markets by competitors.
I think probably a bit of evidence that people would accept as worth considering would be in order at the present time. I should like to read a statement from the April 11, 1951 Searle Grain Company's letter. Before I start to read this, may I say that I recall how greatly exercised some hon. members became last year because I referred to the Searle Grain Company's letter. I argued-and I think soundly-that I had never known the Searle Grain Company to make any errors in figures. They make errors in their conclusions and their reasoning, I grant you that; but their figures are sound. This quotation I am about to give contains figures which can be expressed in their words quite as effectively as they can be expressed in mine, and they will carry with them the authority of the Searle Grain Company. I quote from the letter as follows:
If the 600 million (150 million a year for each of four years) had been offered on the open market then, of course, Britain would not have purchased this wheat under contract, but she would have had to buy from somewhere the same quantity to feed her people for her people were seriously short of food. Britain, therefore, would have had to come to the open market with demands at the rate of 150 million a year, or 600 million in four years. This extra 600 million of demand would have exactly balanced the 600 million of extra supply, so price would not have been affected. Experienced grain men are convinced that the open market price for all our wheat over the four years would most probably have been even higher than the class II rates.
That is their conclusion. I am not saying anything about that.
Could all our wheat have been sold had it not been for the agreement? Most certainly it could have been. During these four years the United States sold on world markets 1,932,000,000 bushels; Argentina sold 373,000,000 bushels; Australia 433,000,000 bushels and Canadian class II wheat 196,000,000 bushels, or a total of 2,934,000,000 bushels and all was

sold at class II or better than class II price. France, India, Turkey and Russia also sold unrevealed additional amounts, again at high prices.
For the first three years the world was badly short of food, The world was even buying Canadian rye at $4.83 a bushel-worth usually 20 per cent less than wheat-and registered seed wheat for making into flour at $6 a bushel. Britain herself was buying wheat from the U.S.A., Australia, Argentina, Turkey and some say from Russia and at prices higher than class II prices.
What reason, then, have we to suppose that Britain or any other buying country would have paid less for Canadian wheat than they did for other wheats lower in quality, and while the world demand considerably exceeded the supply.
The bearing of these comments and figures on the $48 million is simply this. They tend to show that the western farmers were beaten out of a just remuneration for the wheat they produced and sold. They sold their wheat to Great Britain at $1.55 for the first two years and $2 for the second two years very substantially below the world price of class II wheat. It seems beyond any possibility of dispute that these figures and statements constitute complete proof that the western farmers lost heavily as a result of the agreement, and that they therefore have a claim on the Dominion of Canada for a considerable amount of reimbursement to cover their losses.
Some hon. members have objected to the rest of Canada paying taxes for the benefit of the western farmer. That proposition should be examined, to see whether it is valid. Let me read the statement of Chester A. Bloom, entitled "The Prairie Farmers Pay". This clipping is from the Lethbridge Herald of March 24, 1951. When I referred to this article last spring some members became almost furious, because they implied that Chester A. Bloom was employed by somebody. Their objection quite astonished me, because certainly the figures of Chester A. Bloom must be accurate, no matter whom he is employed by, or whether he is employed by anybody. This is the article:
During the five-year wheat pool including the four-year Canada-U.K. wheat agreement, while selling their wheat to Britain at cut-rate prices, the prairie farmers paid 77 per cent of all the farm income taxes paid in Canada.
During the four years of the U.K. wheat agreement, 1946-49 inclusive, the prairie farmers paid 81 per cent of all the farm income taxes paid in Canada-$48,254,000 out of $59,489,000 farm income taxes.
The farmers of the three prairie provinces were getting gypped two ways-their wheat was sold at bargain prices while they carried more than three-quarters of the farm tax load in Canada.
The answer is easy-their wheat was sold by a government board. The government tax collectors knew every cent of their income-not so with all the other farmers of Canada. No wonder governments like handling farm products through boards.
The 1950 farm tax returns are not yet available. But the prairie farmers have been paying an average of more than $12 million a year in farm income
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
taxes. Their 1950 taxes will surely be up to the average so, during the five-year pool into which the government is now making a $65 million final payment, the prairie farmers will have paid taxes in that period within $5 million of the $65 million.
It is quite obvious why the government did not use these figures to rebut some of the $65 million payment criticisms. It is one of the big national tax scandals of Canada.
Here are some of the figures culled from a return furnished February 22, last, by the Department of National Revenue, answering a question asked in the house by H. R. Argue, M.P., Assiniboia:
In 1946, total farm income taxes collected in Canada were $9,843,000 of which prairie farmers, largely wheat growers, paid $8,134,000 or 82-5 per cent.
1947-	Total Canadian farm income taxes collected, $13,581,000; prairie farmers paid $10,567,000 or 77 per cent.
1948-	Total Canadian farm income taxes collected, $18,095,000; three prairie provinces paid farm income taxes of $14,168,000 or 78 per cent.
1949-	Total Canadian farm income taxes collected, $17,970,000; three prairie provinces farm taxes! $15,385,000 or 85 per cent.
The only provinces which came anywhere near approaching these prairie records of farm income taxes were the immensely wealthy old farming province of Ontario whose farmers in 1949 paid $1,940,000 in farm income taxes while British Columbia farmers paid $544,000. Quebec farmers paid only $51,000. The smaller populated maritime provinces that year paid farm income taxes of: P.E.I., $4,000; Nova Scotia, $33,000; New Brunswick, $11,000, and Newfoundland, $2,000.
Even before the Canadian wheat board had records of prairie farmers' wheat receipts, however, the three prairie provinces were furnishing, since 1941, more than 50 per cent of the total farm income taxes collected in Canada. Here are the records 1941 to 1945 inclusive:
1941-Total farm income taxes collected, $1,592,000; prairie payments, $860,000; 1942-total farm income taxes paid, $3,372,000; prairie payments, $2,045,000; 1943-total for Canada, $11,630,000; prairies paid $8,563,000; 1944-total for Canada, $20,482,000; prairies paid $16,838,000; 1945-total for Canada, $13,392,000; prairies paid $8,047,000.
Anyone who will seriously contemplate those figures should indulge no more in talk about having the rest of Canada pay taxes to help the prairie farmers.
Others have argued as a reason why there should be no payment to western farmers that it was not economically sound to subsidize any group. Let us see what subsidies are paid in Canada. When a tariff is placed on a commodity like a mowing machine which causes the people in a primary producing area to have to pay $25, $30, $40 or $50 more for that machine than they would have to pay if the tariff were not imposed, then that tariff is forcing the primary producers to subsidize the machinery companies. There can be no other interpretation placed upon the effect of the tariff.
I have here an article which indicates a great deal of research in its preparation and which I believe will be quite enlightening to all people who are concerned in this matter, as I think everybody is. It is taken from the

17o2
The Address-Mr. Blackmore Manitoba Co-operator of May 3, 1951 and is entitled "They Talk Subsidies". It is copied from the Alberta wheat pool budget of April 20, 1951, and reads:
The turmoil which has been raised in eastern Canada over the $65 million federal grant to the wheat board to make a final payment of 8-3 cents a bushel for wheat in the 1945-49 pool, is, and should be, resented in western Canada. One would think that the western wheat farmers were mendicants and they alone of all classes in Canada received special treatment. That is far from the case.
H. H. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, has listed some federal government subsidy payments made to groups and industries other than farmers, in the 1949-50 fiscal year
as follows:
Subsidy for Canadian gold mines	 $13,715,778
Subsidy on movement of coal	 3,919,000
Subsidy on steel and iron	 4,662,251
For unemployment insurance	 45,059,588
Subsidy for judges' (114) pensions	 458,937
Then special depreciation on $514 million invested was allowed war industry during world war II.
The Canadian tariff in itself operates in the nature of a bonus to Canadian industries and is oppressive particularly to people residing in the prairie provinces of western Canada. In the early 1930's the late Hon. Norman Rogers, Minister of Labour in the Canadian government, prepared a table showing how each province in Canada was affected by the dominion's tariff policy.
That table showed that at that time the Canadian tariffs cost the people of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta $54,925,000 a year, or an annual average charge of $23 on every man, woman and child in the three provinces. With the expansion of Canadian industry and western purchasing, the figures may now be doubled.
The table also showed that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec had an annual gain through the tariff of $83,700,000.
The $65 million grant by the federal government to the wheat board permits a payment of 41 cents a bushel on 1,436,000,000 bushels of wheat delivered by the farmers of western Canada between 1945 and 1949 inclusive. It brings the total payment up to a little over $1.83 a bushel, basis 1 Northern at the terminal, on total deliveries.
Between March 1, 1945, and February 17, 1947, the wheat board sold 160 million bushels of wheat for domestic consumption at $1.25 a bushel when the export price was $1.55. That was a direct subsidy by the wheat producers to Canadian consumers to the extent of $48 million.
The prairie provinces of western Canada constitute a land area of 452 million acres, of which 117 million are in occupied farms; 65 million acres being improved lands. This is one of the most productive farming regions in the world.
During the war this area produced nearly 5,500,000,000 bushels of grain, over 5 billion pounds of beef, and 8,600,000 pounds of pork. This production resulted in Canadian people being among the best fed in the world, and also provided 3,100,000,000 pounds of pork and 600 million pounds of beef for export to Great Britain.
While Canada has experienced a growing industrialism, which strengthens the nation's economic fabric, agricultural production is still the mainstay of the national economy. The farmers of western Canada, under the constant risk of drouth, hail and insect pests, have rendered an exceptional contribution to the progress of the Canadian nation. "Without a west" Canada would not be much of a nation.
In the light of the figures I have placed upon the record during this talk I think it

will be realized that western farmers are most moderate when they come to this parliament asking for compensation for the amount of money they lost as a result of sales of wheat under the British-Canadian wheat agreement, and especially their argument that they are entitled to this $48 million as reimbursement for their loss in subsidizing Canadian bread consumers.


Mr. W. J. Browne (Si. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, the question agitating the minds of most people in Canada for the last year has been the high cost of living. One reason for the higher cost this year has been the high taxation imposed by the government. This was well pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) and also by no less a person than the president of the Bank of Montreal in his recent annual statement to the shareholders. He pointed out that the government through its policy of high taxation was contributing to the increase in the cost of living. This was also pointed out by speakers on the opposition side last year when these extra taxes were put on articles which everyone recognized to be necessaries of life. Therefore the government cannot escape the just accusation that they are responsible to a large extent for the figure the cost of living index has now reached.
This increase in the cost of living falls in various degrees upon different persons. There are some people who have the advantage of working agreements containing escalator clauses so that as the cost of living index rises their wages or salaries also rise. Those people who are getting their income from profits find that those profits are increasing in proportion to the cost of merchandise which they sell. Although they do lag behind somewhat, civil servants get bonuses. But there is a class of person about whom I wish to speak tonight who has very little opportunity of redress and who must depend to a large extent upon government assistance. I intend to speak about the Newfoundland fishermen.
It is a strange anomaly that fish, salted codfish at any rate, is one of the food products in the world that has gone down in price during the past two years. This means that the return to the fisherman is less than it was, whereas the cost of the articles he must use has gone up. In other words his cost of catching fish has increased and the value of fish has gone down.
As hon. members know, in 1949 Newfoundland came into confederation. There were

many who thought this would be most beneficial to all concerned, but it has not proved beneficial to the fisherman, as I intend to point out. In 1948 the fishermen of Newfoundland received their highest prices for fish, about $13.45 for small madeira fish. In 1949 it began that way, but they could not sell their fish and the result was that there was a carryover into the season of 1950. The fisheries prices support board had to come to their assistance to a certain extent. That assistance was not very great, but they had to buy several thousand quintals of fish from the fishermen. However, 1950 was the worst season for many years. The initial price was nearly $3 a quintal lower. I suppose I should explain to hon. members what I mean by a quintal. A quintal is 112 pounds or a hundredweight of fish. The bureau of statistics does not use that figure. They use a figure of 100 pounds, but we refer to a quintal of 112 pounds. In the 1950 season the price started off at only $10.50 for small madeira fish for which $13.45 was paid the year before. There was a difference of nearly $3 a quintal or 3 cents a pound in the price of the fish.
This was bound to have an effect upon the fishermen. But that was the highest price paid during the year, and it began to drop after the month of September. Those who were not fortunate enough to get their fish sold during September had to accept a lower price. I have already brought the prices paid in 1950 to the attention of the house. Fish sold after September averaged as low as $5.50, which is only about half the better price paid in September. The men could not make a living and the provincial government instituted an inquiry to see if the merchants were paying fair and just prices. The fisheries prices support board had an investigation, and some hon. members may recall that it was decided, so far as Labrador fish are concerned, to guarantee a price of $7 a quintal, to which a supplementary amount of 85 cents has since been added in the case of semi-dry fish. Therefore some Labrador fishermen will receive a guaranteed price of $7.85.
Labrador fish is not the superior article that shore fish is and usually commands only 60 to 75 per cent in value by way of return. But with respect to the shore fish the fisheries prices support board has recommended to the government that a deficiency payment of $1.30 per quintal, a little over one cent a pound, be paid to all fishermen independently of the price they may have received. I know some fishermen who received top prices. They were good fishermen and were lucky. They got their fish on the market at the beginning of the season and received top prices. They
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne will also get $1.30, but those unfortunate enough to live a long distance away from the city of St. John's, where the top price was paid in September, those who were unfortunate enough to have bad weather in their communities so they could not make their fish in time, received low prices and the same deficiency payment of $1.30.
As I mentioned, some of them received an average of $5.50. They will get $1.30 added to that. It will be seen that $1.30 added to their $5.50 is very far removed from what the man will get who received the top price of $10.50 and has $1.30 added to that. I suppose the fisheries prices support board gave the matter long and careful consideration and felt that the only practical way to solve the problem was to give everybody $1.30 regardless of how much they had been able to get for their fish. The effect of the depressed prices last year was to drive a lot of people out of the fisheries. They could not go fishing this year. They gave it up. Some of them went to Goose Bay, some to Seven Islands, and others have gone to Greenland. Others have gone wherever they could find work. Some of them are working in the government-owned industries now being started under the new policy of the provincial government. The $1.30 has not yet been paid for the 1950 catch, and we are getting near the end of 1951. I do not know how the government thinks the people who received a little over 5 cents a pound for their fish last year have been living. The amount of $1.30 is not going to be paid until January. I have been asking questions in the house about the matter during the time the house has been in session, and it is always put off a couple of months ahead. Now at last in the new year I suppose the fishermen will begin to get $1.30.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just before the election.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
know if it is going to be before the election. I do not think it will amount to enough to influence the election down there. We come to the 1951 catch, and in many places this year the catch was good. It was better than in 1950, but not so with regard to the Labrador fisheries because most of the people who had been fishing there did not go there this year. There are two classes of fishermen who fish at Labrador. One is called the livyers, people who live there and fish, and the others are floaters who go there in large vessels. To a great extent the large vessels have abandoned the Labrador fishing. For them it is a thing of the past. It does not pay them to go there any more. They

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne have given it up and the government does not seem to be the least bit worried about whether or not they give it up.
But there are other fishermen whom I met recently and whom I also met in 1949, and about whom I can tell a story and give a comparison. In 1949 I was in the village of Ship Harbour on Placentia bay in my constituency. I was in a house there, and as I was having tea a vessel came in from the banks loaded to the gunwales. Everybody was delighted. I was in that same village three weeks ago in the same house. The man who was captain of the vessel that had come in with a load of fish in 1949 was sitting at the table twiddling his thumbs. He was not fishing this year. He had two vessels tied up to his wharf all summer. He had seven traps in the holds. He said to me: "I cannot give that stuff away; I cannot sell those traps for 25 cents, although I have $9,000 worth of material there."
Is the federal government really interested in the fishermen of Newfoundland? Is it really interested in the fisheries of Newfoundland? The minister is a brave man and has received a ribbon of honour for his visit to the Korean battlefront. I know he is a sympathetic person; but does he really intelligently understand the fisheries of Newfoundland? I doubt it. His parliamentary assistant lives nearer and ought to know more about it, but he has not the authority. It is necessary for the government to remember that they have to give a lot more consideration and attention to the fisheries of Newfoundland than they have shown during the last two and a half years if they do not want them to decline. I received a letter only a few days ago from a very fine fisherman who has been in the fisheries all his life. He lives in a fishing village on Placentia bay, and he tells me that men are going to leave the fisheries in greater numbers this coming season. He also stresses the point that although there was a good catch in many places this year the weather was bad and the cull is hard. That means that the inspectors of the merchants, or cullers las we call them, the men who pick out and1 grade the fish, <are very strict, and the quantity of the higher priced fish is much smaller in proportion, Therefore the men are in exactly the same position as they were in 1950.
I call upon the government now to instruct the fisheries prices support board to recognize that situation, because it is equally necessary for them to give a deficiency payment for the 1951 catch as it was for the 1950 catch. I have here the report of the fisheries prices support board for the year 1950-51, which contains a resume of the purposes of the act. I should like to put it on the record to remind


hon. members that I am not asking for anything of an extraordinary nature when I ask the government now to give consideration to making a deficiency payment on the 1951 catch of salt codfish in Newfoundland. The report has this to say:
The act which came into force in July, 1947, gives the fisheries prices support board the usual powers of a government corporation; provides a working fund of $25 million; and sets out the two methods that may be used to support prices of fisheries products. These methods are (a) the purchase of any fisheries product at a prescribed price and (b) the making of deficiency payments to producers of a fisheries product equal to the difference between a prescribed price and the average price at which such product was sold during a specified period.
Now, sir, that is what was done for the 1950 catch. The government set the prescribed price for which this fish should have been sold. They said it was $10.10, and the average price received by the fishermen was $8.80. Subtract $8.80 from $10.10, and you get $1.30. I continue:
The act furthermore directs that in prescribing prices, the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for fisheries by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from fisheries and those from other occupations.
That was a very laudable object which the fisheries prices support board had in mind. I do not think they made a proper adjustment for the 1950 catch by giving $1.30 to a man who had received an average of $5.50. I do hope that this year they will profit by the experience of the past year and be a little .more generous in their recommendations.
But, sir, that is not all about the fisheries. I do not suppose many hon. members in the house are familiar with the manifesto issued by the present premier of Newfoundland prior to the election that took place there on November 26. If they had been able to see that manifesto I think they would have been astonished, if they knew anything about the history of Newfoundland, because one of the policies outlined in this extraordinary manifesto is to take 10,000 men out of the fisheries and put them to work in factories. Anyone who has any knowledge of economics or sound economy for any country must realize that that is revolution. The number of people engaged in the fisheries last year could not have been much over 20,000. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant might know the figure, but I think it would be in the neighbourhood of 20,000. To take half the fishermen out of the fisheries and put them at jobs in factories would mean what? What would be the result? What would be the effect on the fisheries? Is it going to make the fisheries better? The premier of Newfoundland thinks

he is going to put new life into the fisheries by taking 10,000, or half the people, out of them. That is not all. I mention this not from the political standpoint but purely from the economic standpoint, and to draw the attention of the government and the officials concerned in the fisheries department to the policy being enunciated by the premier of Newfoundland. He says the men, women and children, the fishermen, their wives and their families, must be taken away from the slavery of making fish. That was the first time I had ever heard of fishermen being regarded as slaves. I have often heard of wage slaves, of people working in factories living like slaves, but I never heard of fishermen living like slaves, and I do not think it is a sound or sensible statement.
Again, the reason I am drawing it to the attention of the federal government is that this government has a paramount interest in the fisheries of Newfoundland. I do not know what the present policy of the federal government is, but fisheries come under its jurisdiction. What does it say in regard to the policies enunciated by the premier of Newfoundland? The fisheries board of Newfoundland is going to continue to operate for five years, but after that who is going to take over the management of the fisheries? Is it the federal government? Are they going to have anything to say in the meantime? Will the pattern be cut and finished when they take over in another two and a half years? I know the minister has expressed an interest and sympathy. He has advocated an advertising program. I believe he started a kitchen to show people how fish should be cooked, and only today I received a very pleasant surprise, namely a little book of fish recipes, telling us how to cook fish, anything from lobster to salmon, cod and herring.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A very good book.


William Joseph Browne: I am glad to know that the hon. gentleman thinks it is a very good book. I do not know what his wife will think of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have already sent it to her.


William Joseph Browne: I am glad to hear that, too. I should like the minister to tell us what is the result of this policy that he enunciated with such enthusiasm and such confidence a year and a half ago.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Have you a book telling how to sell fish?


William Joseph Browne: That is another matter; that is something that he has not told us yet.


Mr. Noseworthy:: That is fish of another fry.
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne


William Joseph Browne: I have tried to encourage the minister to have confidence in the fisheries; to get him to realize that the salt cod fishery is not a dying industry; that it is a most important industry in Newfoundland still. Despite all this industrialization program of the provincial government, the salt codfish industry remains an industry that has the most far-reaching effect. If hon. gentlemen could have seen the happy look on the faces of fishermen whom I met in the northern parts of Newfoundland last year when they were taking in hundreds of quintals of fish they would have realized the beneficial influence which a good cod fishery has upon the people. I do not know what they are feeling like now with the market depressed and prices low, but I am satisfied that the government has not been doing all that it might do to assist in the marketing of codfish. I noticed that two years ago we sold several thousand quintals of fish to Spain. None was sold last year. Although we were told that a contract was being negotiated, it never came through.
Spain used to be the best market for Newfoundland codfish, taking as high as 375,000 quintals a year. Last year they took none. Does anyone think for a moment that the Spanish people are not eating salt codfish? Of course they are. They are catching some of it themselves, and perhaps they are buying more-I believe they are-from Norway. Therefore there is a market there still which has to be negotiated. The minister told me on one occasion that Spain had a favourable balance of trade with this country. There is something to work on. There are other things which may be purchased in Spain, so that we might have a reciprocal trade agreement with that country. It is a country with a very large population, much larger than Portugal, which takes a great deal of fish, while Spain takes none. I therefore urge the government to explore every avenue to try to sell codfish in Spain.
Brazil is another market that began to deteriorate back nine or ten years ago, and we have not been selling much fish to Brazil. Certainly the government cannot overlook the fact that these countries regard salt codfish as a highly desirable food. It can be so well preserved and carried from place to place, and therefore there must be a need for it if they would only arrange the transaction. I do not say that it is an easy thing to do, but I think there may be a lot more done than has been done in the past.
To go back to this policy enunciated by the premier, of taking 10,000 men out of fisheries; what would be the effect of a policy such as that? Not only 10,000 men would go from the villages, but their families would go from them. Thirty or forty thousand

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne people would be taken out of those fishing communities and would go to the city of St. John's or wherever these industries are started, and live in crowded quarters, tenements and that sort of thing. They would not have the happiness of living in their own homes, and their property would deteriorate. I have a question on the order paper asking the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) about how much money is being lent outside the city of St. John's. I do not think any money is being lent to these fishing communities to make the homes more attractive to the families of fishermen. It seems to me that if the people in the maritimes or in the west can complain about the amount of money that is going to be spent on the seaway project, then the fishermen in all parts of this country have some cause for complaint. They live in isolated communities, and see grand houses being built in the cities while no money is being lent to them to improve their living conditions. What will happen to the schools, churches and local amenities that have to be kept up by contributions from the fishermen if half the population is taken away? It seems to me to be a suicidal policy, and I believe the man who advocates it will find he has made a tremendous mistake.
In addition to those ideas I have mentioned, he also suggested in his manifesto that instead of the traditional way in which the fishery has been conducted he is going to introduce another revolution in the curing of fish. Instead of the individual fisherman going through the various stages of curing and selling his fish, as he has done in the past, the government is going to set up a central curing establishment to which the fishermen will bring their fresh fish. There it will be treated and cured, and from there it will be marketed. This sounds like a plausible scheme, but unless it is a co-operative project in which the fisherman will get his share of the profit or benefit as a result of working through this agency, then he will be even worse off than he is today. He will receive only the price for his fresh fish, which of course is the lowest price at which the commodity is sold. Naturally when the fish just comes out of the water it has a lower value than after it has been processed, salted and dried. In that way the fisherman's family add to the value of the fish and add to their income. If the policy of establishing this central curing agency is pursued it will not only destroy the independence of the fishermen but will make them far more dependent upon government assistance than they have ever been in the past.
On occasions I believe the federal government, as well as other people, have made

reference to the change that is taking place in the cod fishery due to the expansion of the fresh and frozen fish market, especially in the United States. It is a tonic, therefore, to realize that in the past few days New England interests have been appearing before the United States tariff commission demanding an increase in the tariff on fresh fish imported into the United States. I say that is a tonic because it is a reminder to those people who are placing so much confidence in the United States market that this market may be lost over night. The difference of a half a cent a pound may ruin that market for us, and the tariff may be raised more than that. Next year is an election year in the United States, and it is possible that the tariff commission may do something to satisfy the New England interests who have always been jealous of the sales made by the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland fishermen in the United States market. I noticed, too, that not only Nova Scotia and Newfoundland fish is going into this market, but since 1948 the Norwegians have been selling frozen codfish in the United States market. Although in 1948 they sold only a small quantity, about $85,000 worth, this year the value of the fish sold was over $2 million. In the salt codfish markets of the world Newfoundland has been faced with Norwegian competition, and now Norway is going into the fresh fish market of the United States.
It would not be wise for the government to depend too much upon the expansion of the fresh fish market. In Newfoundland we are going to get two or three new plants this year, and several new draggers have been built or purchased during the past year. The federal government is experimenting wih new ways of catching fish. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the chief problem facing the salt cod fishery is the marketing of salt codfish. The government need not be so worried about the question of catching the codfish. I believe the Newfoundlanders know how to catch codfish if the government can only assist them in marketing it. We have these new plants, these new vessels and these new methods, but I think it is a dangerous policy to allow the salt cod fishery to decline in the way it has during the past three years.
May I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Joseph Browne: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. Members:: It is not ten o'clock.


William Joseph Browne: Some of
the members must like what I am saying

since they want me to continue. I have something which I should like to read. I should like to draw to the attention of the house a bulletin issued by the fisheries council.


Mr. Bryce:: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is there any guarantee that we should be finished this debate if the Iron, member is allowed to complete his speech? Is any other hon. member going to speak, because if he is there is no use sitting here.


Mr. Maclnnis:: It is ten o'clock.


William Joseph Browne: I can finish in another fifteen minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is ten o'clock.


William Joseph Browne: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact the hon. member for St. John's West intends to speak only fifteen minutes longer, I suppose the hon. member for Selkirk withdraws his question? The hon. member for Selkirk suggested that this was the last speech. Shall we allow the hon. member for St. John's West to continue?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I regret to inform you, sir,
that it is not the last speech.
Business of the House
On motion of Mr. Browne (St. John's West) the debate was adjourned.
%



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall
consider the Senate amendments to Bill No. 21, an act respecting the Canadian forces. I understand there are some minor amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Several pages of them.


Alphonse Fournier: But they are repetitious. Then we shall consider Bill No. 33, an act respecting the St. Lawrence seaway authority; Bill No. 34, an act respecting the construction of works for the generation of electrical power in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river; then the resolution concerning the amendments to the Dominion Elections Act; the resolution concerning the National Gallery of Canada and the resolution to amend the Civil Service Act; then Bill No. 8, an act to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
1759
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 11, 1951